My wife needed a cycle tracker. Everything out there was either Flo (which got sued twice for sharing health data) or an abandoned GitHub project. So I built Ovumcy. Single Go binary, SQLite, Docker-ready. No analytics, no third-party APIs, no cloud. Your data stays on your server. Features: period tracking, symptom logging, predictions (ovulation, fertile window), statistics, CSV/JSON export, dark mode, Russian and English. Just pushed v0.2.5. Looking for feedback from real users.
I do use AI tools while developing this project, but I also have a BSc in Computer Science. AI is a productivity tool.
Security is something I take seriously, especially since the project deals with health data. All code has test and you’re welcome to inspect the repository yourself or point out any specific security concerns if you notice them.
Regarding licensing: the AGPL license applies to the project as a whole regardless of the tools used to write parts of the code.
If you have concrete technical feedback or security issues, I’d genuinely appreciate it.
The danger being raised with the licensing is that you can’t license something if you’re not considered to be the author. There are growing examples of courts and lawmakers determining AI output to be public domain:
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/06/ai_kills_software_licensing/
This is an evolving, global situation and hard to know what to do right now. I think what you’ve got is fine though - you’ve made it clear your intention is to license with AGPL. It’s just that depending on the jurisdiction it might be public domain instead.
This is another reason to be clear about the use of AI in the README so your users can make an informed decision.
I agree, though there is a difference in case you rovided and mine. It is a human-directed work. Thousands of libraries, Kubernetes, Kubernetes still live and license is valid.
How does AI help with productivity? I’ve gotten so many false answers that I quit trusting it
Imagine you are on the ground under your car and need a different tool. You ask for it and somebody hands it to you. That person is young and inexperienced. It is up to You to check if it’s the right tool, and if not pass it back (and in this example tell the person about the error and help them correct it).
And sure, You can always crawl out and get the tool yourself and sometimes that is the only option and in coding terms in my opinion best practice. But you can be faster with your helper. Use it appropriately and see how it affects your work. And that’s the point, your work. Don’t pass responsibility or thought off to AI.
Because it’s able to write boilerplate faster than a human. And because it’s able to perform refactorings that are not possible with IDEs or regex due to their lack of structure. Also because you can ask it to review your files and it does find bugs that would otherwise be missed at first. There’s a huge difference between vibe-coded slop and using the tools available to you effectively.
You should add a disclaimer stating that you have used an LLM. I have done so for a tool I built with an LLM that I needed, because I don’t know jackshit about coding and I am not gonna pretend I do.
But if OP does know and applies that knowledge to what they are doing, it’s not the same thing and doesn’t make sense to have the same disclaimer.
It’s not realistic to expect no AI assistance in coding in 2026.
It’s also not a stand-in for a human. There’s a huge field of gray where it’s unclear how much of it was fully vibe coded vs how much is carefully hand reviewed and/or written.
I’ve been a professional developer for decades and I’ve done both. Obviously I’ve hand coded stuff for many years. The fully vibe coded stuff is personal, to test and learn the capabilities of the tech. My professional stuff I watch much more closely, and I’m much more targeted in what I’m having the AI do.
That said, if I were gonna use this I’d actually review the code. I’m not recommending this guy’s stuff, but you can’t rule it out on the basis of ai assistance alone.
Guess I’ll stick to unrealistic software then.
It may not be a stand in for a human, but that’s exactly how many of these vibe coded projects are. It’s not unreasonable to ask the developer to spend 30 seconds to describe how they use these tools.
Partially agree, but I do know how to code and use it as a tool.
Why?
It makes sense to try to give users an idea of how robust a project is, but the exact details of the tools involved in its creation rarely add much to that. It gets a little weird with LLMs because they allow someone with no programming skill to create software that appears to work, which ought to be disclosed; “I don’t know what I’m doing and I asked a robot to make this” does indicate unreliable code. A skilled developer having an LLM fill in some extra test cases, on the other hand can only make the project more robust.
You can see that I use some of metrics, like test coverage, estimates and so on to prove its validation as potentially serious project, that will grow from a pet one.
Testcoverage by ai generated Tests is close to worthless. “Tests are only as good as the person writing them”
Did you generate your tests?
I’m guessing you let the AI make the tests and everything, which wouldn’t give me much reassurance that any of the code is good. Sadly AI will jump through any hoops it can to get tests to pass if it can’t get the code working.
I think people who let AI run wild to create a whole app should write the tests themselves or at least only with line completion (jusdging by a quick look at the project files, I am guessing an AI did everything).
Could be food for thought?