42 comments

[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 47.3 ms ] thread
It works! I love using it for open source repos.
I insta-banned this site in Kagi. The trigger for me: utter disrespect for the user with unhideable glassy floating chatbox at the bottom of the page.

And WTF with these floating boxes popping up everywhere?!? They are tailor-made to trigger anxiety in people with OCD. They look like a notification that keep grabbing your attention as you scroll the text. Example: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/secure-eks-clusters-with-th...

I tried a few different repositories (both my own and various other people’s projects). They all yield the same:

    No repositories found

    No repositories matching "https://git.sr.ht/~whynothugo/ImapGoose" were found.
Probably broken/down right now?
I find it's better than context7, but that's not saying much
I took a look at a project I maintain[0], and wow. It's so wrong in every section I saw. The generated diagrams make no sense. The text sections take implementation details that don't matter and present them to the user like they need to know them. It's also outdated.

I hope actual users never see this. I dread thinking about having to go around to various LLM generated sites to correct documentation I never approved of to stop confusing users that are tricked into reading it.

[0]: https://deepwiki.com/blopker/codebook

they will

it's the first result on google for just about anything technical I search for

Please don't correct the AI documentation. Just let those projects die as they deserve.
Likewise, I tested this with a project we're using at work (https://deepwiki.com/openstack/kayobe-config) and at first it seems rather impressive until you realize the diagrams don't actually give any useful understanding of the system. Then, asking it questions, it gave useful seeming answers but which I knew were wholly incorrect. Worse than useless: disorienting and time-wasting.
This worked well for me for some things I've recently been learning/working on. One improvement I'd add is the citations of where information have come from aren't hyperlinks it would be very useful if they were!
The diagrams generated are arbitrary and make no sense. This needs improvements
(comment deleted)
I wanted to try the tool with a repo I know. After a few attempts to select cars, bus,crosswalks, I got "capchat timeout error".
Do we need this, when we have tools like Claude Code, Codex etc that you can talk to about the codebase they are started in?
I use this heavily to navigate the neondatabase/neon repo and it has been invaluable
This is a nice idea in theory. But you need excellent docs in the firstplace for it to work.

And if a human spent painstaking effort writing excellent docs, the least bit of respect i can give them is read it.

This doesn't work. It's better to prompt an agent with specific questions per subject. Having this general AI interpretation of a doc can be amazingly misleading. Nice idea, but unfortunately absolutely useless and even time wasting at the moment.
Is the documentation generated using LLMs? Anyway this would only work if the documentation is truly top notch and completely accurate
I don’t want to talk to my documentation. I just want the facts searchable and easily readable.
(comment deleted)
How many errors does that contain - anyone knows stats for that?

I see "AI summaries" on github all the time. It's like a wall of text and seems to be designed to be super-verbose but without seemingly being very informative.

I've seen this idea before claude code gemini cli etc were a thing. This is not relevant anymore (unless you surpass these tools).

Cool idea, bad timing

Looks like it's impossible for me to use this service - when I try to submit the form, I get a reCAPTCHA challenge. By the time I complete it (Google requires me to make several attempts, each one being several pages), the page errors out in the background with "reCAPTCHA execution timeout".
This is an interesting threads. There are many instances of "this is bad, doesn't work, don't like it", and many instances of "it works reasonably well here, look: <url>".

Seems like a consistent pattern.