From b6eb319d3a5aae28486a870cfc8245db54fb98e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fi3w0 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 01:51:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] docs: disclose how AI assisted the project --- ai.md | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) create mode 100644 ai.md diff --git a/ai.md b/ai.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..48d103f --- /dev/null +++ b/ai.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +# AI assistance + +This project was built with help from AI coding tools. The main assistants were +Codex CLI and Claude Code CLI, using GPT-5.6 Sol and Sonnet 5.0. + +Some code, configuration and documentation were drafted by these assistants. +Other parts were written by me. I defined the architecture, requirements and +constraints, decided what belonged in the project, reviewed the generated +changes, tested them on the real infrastructure and kept responsibility for the +final result. AI output was treated as a draft or implementation proposal, not +as proof that something worked. + +Debugging was mixed. Some problems were investigated manually with logs, +metrics and command-line tools. Some research used Google and official +documentation. Other issues were worked through with AI, including longer Codex +loops that inspected a failure, changed one thing, ran the verification again +and continued until the real system reached the expected state. + +Most failures were not complicated application bugs. They were networking or +small configuration mistakes: firewall rules between Kubernetes nodes, +permissions on pod log files, an incorrect image tag, missing RBAC verbs, +stale credentials after a database reset, or monitoring windows that still +contained earlier errors. Those failures were only considered fixed after the +relevant test, deployment, metric query or health check passed. + +No assistant was allowed to invent successful results. The repository roadmap +uses partial status for work that still needs external hardware or credentials, +and `docs/evidence.md` records the important checks that were actually run.