Any "TUI" you've seen in the past few years is 100% vide-coded slop.

Curious what you consider those that aren't 100% 'slop', aside from the common ones.

Because I'm starting to see the word 'slop' as a synonym for:

"This person may or may not have used AI to build software and I don't like it"

Slop is slop when the author could not have done it without the AI.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan#:~:text=%E2%80...

Right but it doesn't answer my question about what you don't consider a slop TUI though.

> Slop is slop when the author could not have done it without the AI.

For Vim (1.) and Linux's AI adoption policies, there are some contributors who couldn't have made a PR / patch without AI. Are Vim and Linux now considered slop because they allow AI contributions?

(1.) https://github.com/vim/vim/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#using...

I would say this is a fair question, and that slop can be laundered when there are multiple collaborators and at least one of them knows what they are doing. Whereas a monograph written entirely by Claude is always just slop.

> I would say this is a fair question, and that slop can be laundered when there are multiple collaborators and at least one of them knows what they are doing.

Sounds like you consider Vim and Linux to be slop by your definition. As an example:

https://github.com/vim/vim/commits/master/?since=2026-08-02&...

Claude's contributions are littered around the vim's C codebase, so surely Vim is now a 100% slop TUI?

So my question still remains, what tool do you think isn't a 100% slop TUI?