Why Bother with Lint Rules If AI Writes the Code?
A few days ago I merged a change at work that swapped ESLint for oxlint across our monorepo. With full ruleset parity, a full local lint went from 3 minutes to about 1 second. Finally I could tell people we could stop pushing with --no-verify, a nasty workaround that had become muscle memory for basically all of us as a means of bypassing slow local lint checks.
- ▪A few days ago I merged a change at work that swapped ESLint for oxlint across our monorepo.
- ▪With full ruleset parity, a full local lint went from 3 minutes to about 1 second.
- ▪Finally I could tell people we could stop pushing with --no-verify, a nasty workaround that had become muscle memory for basically all of us as a means of bypassing slow local lint checks.
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 5,781 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Allstead |
| Canonical URL | https://allstead.dev/blog/why-lint-when-ai-writes-the-code |
| Publication time | Mon, 21 Sep 2026 01:56:59 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-09-21T02:08:47.632Z |
| Last seen | 2026-09-21T02:08:47.632Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | AwPt0acFOOK- · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
A few days ago I merged a change at work that swapped ESLint for oxlint across our monorepo. Oxlint is awesome by the way. With full ruleset parity, a full local lint went from 3 minutes to about 1 second. It was a good day. Finally I could tell people we could stop pushing with --no-verify, a nasty workaround that had become muscle memory for basically all of us as a means of bypassing slow local lint checks. I started a slack thread where I explained the change to the team and mentioned that I was excited about the speed improvements because it would save everyone a lot of time, especially those like me that have switched to agentic engineering where I rarely touch the code myself.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Allstead.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Allstead
