I want to see the work done by human beings, not just the AI output. "Open source" to me is sharing the input required, idealistically as much as possible. Without including at least prompts and separating AI output from manual revisions this GitHub repo feels more like publishing "open weights" does, definitely useful but for the most part only for its intended purpose instead of also teaching how to do something similar myself. (See also recent discussion about Android publishing source less often: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46524379)
None of this should be considered critical of this project specifically, very few share "how the sausage is made". You're breaking new ground with a comment about being AI generated prominent in the README, I hope that catches on.
> "Open source" to me is sharing the input required [...]
I don't disagree with your sentiment, I am also more interested in human-written projects, but I'm curious about how this works. Would a new sorting network not be open source if found by a closed source searching program, like AlphaDev? Would code written with a closed source LSP (ie. Pylance) not be open source even if openly licenced? Would a program written in a closed source language like Mojo then be closed source, no matter what the author licences it under? The line between input and tool seems arbitrary at best, and I don't see what freedoms are being restricted by only releasing the generated code.