The Attribution Assurance License is a particularly bold choice for a repo of code the author presumably didn't write

I'm pretty sure a good portion of Canva is vibe-coded too. You could argue Canva has tests, QA, etc. But somehow I feel we just tend to associate quality to commercial products.

Interestingly, Claude has generated a LICENSE file which demands commits & changes are GPG signed. But the repo's license file has no GPG metadata (nor does the rest of the app), so it's impossible for anyone to commit to, extend, or meaningfully change this code without violating the repo's license.

In short, nobody can commit to, change, or meaningfully adjust this repository while adhering to its license.

I think that sould be obvious without even looking at the code... Like what artcraft did with adobe, its now viable to offer apps completely free by leveraging 100% ai. You could argue the code quality doesnt matter much as long as it works (for local apps security is less a concern).

Also, when building similar style apps, I often don't even start git until the app is in a stable state. The earliest code is often worthless and the overall direction not stable.

More likely the author squashed the commit history.

does it work?

Pretty standard at this point, especially for non-critical open source projects like this...

Sorry to break it to you, its from our internal project (only the editor part) which had way less feature. And you should watch commit history of open source projects more often every single one usages Claude/codex, people no longer code by hand its over.