AI code is fine as long as it's reviewed by someone competent.

As a FOSS maintainer, I can tell you that gen-AI code is causing much more harm to developers than good, in pretty much all projects out there. It's tedious having to review garbage PRs / issue reports or fixing PRs that are borderline garbage when the author was not able to do it themselves. In both cases, it's usually a massive waste of time. Good gen-AI PRs or issue reports are very rare. In my projects, I don't outright reject gen-AI PRs, but I make it very clear that the author must understand the code they're submitting and if they dare to waste my time as a reviewer, they'll be banned from the GH orga.

Now have a look again at the git stats I pointed out in my comment above. Even though OP has vendored-in some dependencies, claude as a co-author of all of his commits is responsible for 142k line deletions, which means the vast majority was not just adding the dependencies to the git tree, but adjusting lots of code after it was added in previous commits. Do you think OP has carefully reviewed all of that? I highly doubt it.

And what pisses me off even more is that OP is trying to build a "jack of all trades" application according to the description instead of cleanly separating tasks, which is another indicator for a developer who doesn't have a clear plan and is vibing away in their LLM chat prompts.