Skip to content
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 6 additions & 2 deletions src/i18n.js
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -302,7 +302,9 @@ Dieses Framework bietet eine https://github.com/LLM-Coding/Semantic-Anchors?tab=

*Halluzinierte Packages (Slopsquatting)* — https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2025/04/14/package-hallucination-slopsquatting-malicious-code/[~20% der empfohlenen Packages existieren nicht]. Angreifer können diese Namen registrieren. "huggingface-cli" wurde https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/ai-hallucinations-slopsquatting/[über 30.000 mal installiert].

*Automation Complacency* — Entwickler mit AI-Assistenten produzieren mehr Vulnerabilities und glauben gleichzeitig, sichereren Code zu schreiben (https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622[Stanford, Perry et al. 2022]). https://devclass.com/2025/02/20/ai-is-eroding-code-quality-states-new-in-depth-report/[Code-Review-Beteiligung sinkt um 30%].`,
*Automation Complacency* — Entwickler mit AI-Assistenten produzieren mehr Vulnerabilities und glauben gleichzeitig, sichereren Code zu schreiben (https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622[Stanford, Perry et al. 2022]). https://devclass.com/2025/02/20/ai-is-eroding-code-quality-states-new-in-depth-report/[Code-Review-Beteiligung sinkt um 30%].

*Beschleunigter Lehman-Decay* — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution[Lehmans Gesetze (1980)] unterscheiden *S-Type* (formal spezifiziert, geschlossen), *P-Type* (Problemlösung mit Näherungs-Spec) und *E-Type* (in die Welt eingebettet, muss mitevolvieren — Banking, SaaS, Agenten). E-Type-Systeme unterliegen *Continuing Change*, *Increasing Complexity* und *Declining Quality*. AI-generierter Code beschleunigt diese Zerfallsdynamik, weil LLMs kein persistentes Gedächtnis der Projekthistorie haben — sie können nicht "mit dem Code altern". Bei S-Type-Code (Algorithmen, reine Utility-Funktionen) ist das Risiko gering. Faustregel: Je E-typischer das System, desto mehr Review-Budget und Refactoring-Kapazität einplanen.`,
},
Comment on lines +307 to 308
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify if German Wikipedia page exists for Lehman's laws

echo "Checking if German Wikipedia article exists for Lehman's laws..."
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehmans_Gesetze_der_Softwareentwicklung"
echo ""
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman-Gesetze"
echo ""

echo "Checking English Wikipedia article (currently linked)..."
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution"

Repository: LLM-Coding/vibe-coding-risk-radar

Length of output: 210


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual content at lines 307-308 and 671-672 in src/i18n.js

echo "=== German version (lines 307-308) ==="
sed -n '305,310p' src/i18n.js

echo ""
echo "=== English version (lines 671-672) ==="
sed -n '669,674p' src/i18n.js

Repository: LLM-Coding/vibe-coding-risk-radar

Length of output: 2408


Fix capitalization inconsistencies between German and English versions

The German and English translations use inconsistent capitalization for Lehman's law terminology:

  1. Type terminology: German uses "S-Type", "P-Type", "E-Type" (uppercase 'T') while English uses "S-type", "P-type", "E-type" (lowercase 't').

  2. Law names: German uses "Continuing Change", "Increasing Complexity", "Declining Quality" (title case) while English uses "continuing change", "increasing complexity", "declining quality" (lowercase).

Align both versions to lowercase convention ("S-type", "continuing change", etc.) to match standard software engineering literature and Lehman's original terminology.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@src/i18n.js` around lines 307 - 308, Update the Lehman terminology
capitalization in the translation strings: change "*S-Type*", "*P-Type*",
"*E-Type*" to "*S-type*", "*P-type*", "*E-type*" and change "*Continuing
Change*", "*Increasing Complexity*", "*Declining Quality*" to lowercase
"*continuing change*", "*increasing complexity*", "*declining quality*" so
German and English variants use the same lowercase convention; locate and edit
the German string starting with "Beschleunigter Lehman-Decay" and the
corresponding English translation entries in the i18n strings (the Lehman-law
sentence blocks) to make these replacements consistently.

{
id: "mitigations",
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -664,7 +666,9 @@ This framework provides a https://github.com/LLM-Coding/Semantic-Anchors?tab=rea

*Hallucinated packages (Slopsquatting)* — https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2025/04/14/package-hallucination-slopsquatting-malicious-code/[~20% of recommended packages don't exist]. Attackers can register these names. "huggingface-cli" was https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/ai-hallucinations-slopsquatting/[installed 30,000+ times] before detection.

*Automation Complacency* — Developers using AI assistants produce more vulnerabilities while simultaneously believing they write more secure code (https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622[Stanford, Perry et al. 2022]). https://devclass.com/2025/02/20/ai-is-eroding-code-quality-states-new-in-depth-report/[Code review participation drops by 30%].`,
*Automation Complacency* — Developers using AI assistants produce more vulnerabilities while simultaneously believing they write more secure code (https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622[Stanford, Perry et al. 2022]). https://devclass.com/2025/02/20/ai-is-eroding-code-quality-states-new-in-depth-report/[Code review participation drops by 30%].

*Accelerated Lehman Decay* — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman%27s_laws_of_software_evolution[Lehman's laws (1980)] distinguish *S-type* (formally specified, closed), *P-type* (problem-solving with approximate spec), and *E-type* (embedded in the world, must evolve with it — banking, SaaS, agents). E-type systems are subject to *continuing change*, *increasing complexity*, and *declining quality*. AI-generated code accelerates this decay dynamic because LLMs have no persistent memory of project history — they cannot "age with the code". For S-type code (algorithms, pure utility functions), the risk is low. Rule of thumb: The more E-type a system, the more review budget and refactoring capacity to plan for.`,
},
{
id: "mitigations",
Expand Down
Loading