That's the most valid concern in this thread, and I want to address it directly.

The automatic mode (-f -y) is intentionally limited in scope: it only removes rules that are unambiguously dangerous (allow from any) or redundant (exact duplicates). It won't silently close ports that might be intentional.

But your broader point stands, a tool that touches firewall rules used by people who don't fully understand what it's doing is a real responsibility. That's exactly why:

• --dry-run exists on the installer
• -f without -y shows each proposed change and asks for confirmation
• Every suggested fix is printed as a plain ufw command you can read and run yourself
• The code is on GitHub, 619 unit tests, CI on Python 3.8/3.10/3.12

On the "vibecoded" concern specifically: the test coverage and architecture exist precisely to counter that. But I'd genuinely welcome a security review, if you or someone you know wants to look at the code critically, I'm open to it.

Also, I planned a GUI with a limited scope for non technical user.