Am 03.09.25 um 09:55 schrieb Matt Borland via Boost:
I like your idea of using AI to present the problem space of a new library and a list of competing libraries. I agree it’s one thing where AI can help. Is this valuable during the review? I would argue no. The giant AI generated post read like a relatively standard competitive analysis. That should be looked at much earlier by the author in the development lifecycle of the library. The expectation of reviewers is that they are not newcomers to the area of review, and as we have seen they often reference the behavior of other libraries. I think such an "analysis" could be valuable at the start of the review. There were some corrections on the facts in that post. To my understanding: One looks like a nitpick, one as additional information, one real inaccuracy fixed though it was not completely wrong and I don't agree with the JSON point.
So it doesn't seem to bad although it might be better if the library author would have had a look on the summary too. I think having such an overview/summary might make it easier for reviewers to focus on specific parts / get ideas what to look at. So I'm not fully opposed to such a practice. Might be worth trying again and refining the process before fully abandoning it.