> I found the experience of reading this commit history and imagining myself using such a tool — without exaggeration — nauseating. The commit history[1] looks

> I found the experience of reading this commit history and imagining myself using such a tool — without exaggeration — nauseating. The commit history[1] looks like a totally normal commit history on page 1, but I clicked farther down and found commits like > Ask Claude to fix bug with token exchange callback when reusing refresh token. > As explained in the readme, when we rotate the refresh token, we still allow the previous refresh token to be used again, in case the new token is lost due to an error. However, in the previous commit, we hadn't properly updated the wrapped key to handle this case. > Claude also found that the behavior when `grantProps` was returend without `tokenProps` was confusing -- you'd expect the access token to have the new props, not the old. I agreed and had Claude update it. > Claude Code transcript: https://claude-workerd-transcript.pages.dev/oauth-provider-token-exchange-callback2 https://claude-workerd-transcript.pages.dev/oauth-provider-t... It seems no different than "run prettier on the code" or "re-run code gen". I don't think it's fair to pick on this specific repo if your objection is just "I don't like reviewing code written by a tool that can't improve, regardless of what the commits look like". I'd call that "misanthropomorphizing". 1. https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider/commits/main/ https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider/commits...