Why?

It makes sense to try to give users an idea of how robust a project is, but the exact details of the tools involved in its creation rarely add much to that. It gets a little weird with LLMs because they allow someone with no programming skill to create software that appears to work, which ought to be disclosed; “I don’t know what I’m doing and I asked a robot to make this” does indicate unreliable code. A skilled developer having an LLM fill in some extra test cases, on the other hand can only make the project more robust.

It’s not realistic to expect no AI assistance in coding in 2026.

It’s also not a stand-in for a human. There’s a huge field of gray where it’s unclear how much of it was fully vibe coded vs how much is carefully hand reviewed and/or written.

I’ve been a professional developer for decades and I’ve done both. Obviously I’ve hand coded stuff for many years. The fully vibe coded stuff is personal, to test and learn the capabilities of the tech. My professional stuff I watch much more closely, and I’m much more targeted in what I’m having the AI do.

That said, if I were gonna use this I’d actually review the code. I’m not recommending this guy’s stuff, but you can’t rule it out on the basis of ai assistance alone.

You can see that I use some of metrics, like test coverage, estimates and so on to prove its validation as potentially serious project, that will grow from a pet one.

Partially agree, but I do know how to code and use it as a tool.