Show HN: I built a linter for undocumented linter warnings. AI hates me now
A new tool called Shamefile has been developed to help document linter warnings in code. It requires developers to provide reasons for suppressing warnings, promoting accountability and reducing tech debt. The tool integrates with various programming languages and aims to improve code review processes by making suppression documentation a standard practice.
- ▪Shamefile prevents developers from silencing linter warnings without justification.
- ▪It creates a shamefile.yaml for documentation and a shame CLI for interaction.
- ▪The tool supports multiple programming languages and integrates with CI/CD processes.
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 3,316 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 | GitHub |
| Canonical URL | https://github.com/BKDDFS/shamefile |
| Publication time | Tue, 19 May 2026 13:11:04 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-19T13:14:57.701Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-19T13:14:57.701Z |
| 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 | psntX3q9qZoi |
| 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
Turn silent tech debt into reviewable and documented decisions. How it works • Why use it • Installation • Supported languages • FAQ • Roadmap • Contributing shamefile won't let anyone silence a linter warning in your code without writing down why. People are lazy. Both committer and code reviewer. The committer slaps a // NOLINT comment when there's no easy fix. They don't justify it — in most languages there's no good place for that. The code reviewer focuses on more important things: security, bugs, design. There's no dedicated time for checking new suppression arrivals. Shamefile adds shamefile.yaml for the code reviewer and the shame CLI for the committer to give them tools to react before tech debt gets out of control.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at GitHub.