Look at this one:
> Ask Claude to remove the "backup" encryption key. Clearly it is still important to security-review Claude's code!
> prompt: I noticed you are storing a "backup" of the encryption key as `encryptionKeyJwk`. Doesn't this backup defeat the end-to-end encryption, because the key is available in the grant record without needing any token to unwrap it?
I don’t think a non-expert would even know what this means, let alone spot the issue and direct the model to fix it.
If you look at the README it is completely revealed... so i would argue there is nothing to "reveal" in the first place.
> I started this project on a lark, fully expecting the AI to produce terrible code for me to laugh at. And then, uh... the code actually looked pretty good. Not perfect, but I just told the AI to fix things, and it did. I was shocked.
> To emphasize, this is not "vibe coded". Every line was thoroughly reviewed and cross-referenced with relevant RFCs, by security experts with previous experience with those RFCs.
Thats the biggest issue I see. In most cases I don't use llm because DIYing it takes less time than prompting/waiting/checking every line.
Yes:
> It took me a few days to build the library with AI.
> I estimate it would have taken a few weeks, maybe months to write by hand.
> or just tried to prove a point that if you actually already know all details of impl you can guide llm to do it?
No:
> I was an AI skeptic. I thoughts LLMs were glorified Markov chain generators that didn't actually understand code and couldn't produce anything novel. I started this project on a lark, fully expecting the AI to produce terrible code for me to laugh at. And then, uh... the code actually looked pretty good. Not perfect, but I just told the AI to fix things, and it did. I was shocked.
— https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider/?tab=re...
How novel is a OAuth provider library for cloudflare workers? I wouldn't be surprised if it'd been trained on multiple examples.