vrr/Pulse
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rcourtman/Pulse.git synced 2026-10-19 10:33:29 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 13

docs: refine AI transparency wording

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
rcourtman 2026-08-15 22:55:36 +01:00
parent acef44e162
commit 3cbd684fd4
2 changed files with 24 additions and 18 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

21
docs/AI_TRANSPARENCY.md
View file

@ -21,8 +21,9 @@ one person can sustain by hand at any reasonable quality bar.
AI assistance is the reason a solo project can cover that breadth, ship
frequent releases, and usually turn a reproducible bug report into a fix in
days rather than months. Refusing these tools would not make Pulse better. It
would make it slower and buggier. I consider working this way a professional
obligation, not a shortcut.
would make it slower and buggier. Used responsibly, these tools help me sustain
the project's scope and quality. They accelerate the work without removing the
need for judgment, verification, or accountability.
## Where it is used
@ -55,9 +56,9 @@ way.
Pulse is judged the same way all software should be judged, by what it does.
The test suites, the audit gates that run before anything lands, the release
candidate process, and the issue tracker history are all public. If you find a
bug, report it with steps to reproduce and it will get fixed. "This looks
AI-written" is not a bug report, and style-sniffing a diff or an issue reply
tells you nothing about whether the code is correct.
bug, report it with steps to reproduce and it will get fixed. Specific concerns
about correctness, security, reliability, or maintainability are welcome and
will be investigated on their merits.
## From here on
@ -70,10 +71,12 @@ forward.
## If you object on principle
That is your call, and I am not going to argue anyone out of it. But I am also
not going to pretend, hedge, or apologise. Nearly every actively developed
software project you rely on today is built with some level of AI assistance,
whether its maintainers say so or not. I would rather say so.
That is your call, and I am not going to argue anyone out of it. This document
is not intended to persuade everyone, but to make Pulse's development process
clear enough for users to make an informed decision.
AI assistance is increasingly common in software development, but disclosure
is inconsistent. I would rather be explicit about how it is used here.
Judge Pulse on what it does on your infrastructure and on the track record in
the [issue tracker](https://github.com/rcourtman/Pulse/issues). Those are the

21
frontend-modern/public/docs/AI_TRANSPARENCY.md
View file

@ -21,8 +21,9 @@ one person can sustain by hand at any reasonable quality bar.
AI assistance is the reason a solo project can cover that breadth, ship
frequent releases, and usually turn a reproducible bug report into a fix in
days rather than months. Refusing these tools would not make Pulse better. It
would make it slower and buggier. I consider working this way a professional
obligation, not a shortcut.
would make it slower and buggier. Used responsibly, these tools help me sustain
the project's scope and quality. They accelerate the work without removing the
need for judgment, verification, or accountability.
## Where it is used
@ -55,9 +56,9 @@ way.
Pulse is judged the same way all software should be judged, by what it does.
The test suites, the audit gates that run before anything lands, the release
candidate process, and the issue tracker history are all public. If you find a
bug, report it with steps to reproduce and it will get fixed. "This looks
AI-written" is not a bug report, and style-sniffing a diff or an issue reply
tells you nothing about whether the code is correct.
bug, report it with steps to reproduce and it will get fixed. Specific concerns
about correctness, security, reliability, or maintainability are welcome and
will be investigated on their merits.
## From here on
@ -70,10 +71,12 @@ forward.
## If you object on principle
That is your call, and I am not going to argue anyone out of it. But I am also
not going to pretend, hedge, or apologise. Nearly every actively developed
software project you rely on today is built with some level of AI assistance,
whether its maintainers say so or not. I would rather say so.
That is your call, and I am not going to argue anyone out of it. This document
is not intended to persuade everyone, but to make Pulse's development process
clear enough for users to make an informed decision.
AI assistance is increasingly common in software development, but disclosure
is inconsistent. I would rather be explicit about how it is used here.
Judge Pulse on what it does on your infrastructure and on the track record in
the [issue tracker](https://github.com/rcourtman/Pulse/issues). Those are the