For context, I read Claude output every single day, I know what it is reliable with and what it is not. Or at least I have a feel for how much I can trust it.

It may not be clear to a non-english first language person, but when I read Claudes documentation, my brain immediately picks up claude-speak. Therefore, I expect the code to be generally correct, maybe, depending on how specific I was during my prompting. In no way shape or form do I really trust it, at least until i dig into the code and validate my mental model. And query the review for edge cases etc...

By writing your documentation with Claude, my brain immediately associates the quality of the project with the quality of unreviewed Claude output.

To a degree this is unfair, as it is like judging the quality of someone's work based on their accent.

But Claudes accent, has a high correlation with Claude, so unlike with people, where an accent has no bearing on technical ability, Claude being Claude does.

I would much rather read a typo ridden sentence than claudism, even just as a forward, explaining what you did vs the ai, and telling the users how much we should trust it.

Also, If you really insist on using AI to write, have another model rewrite docs/comments into regular English (opus 4.6 for example is much better than 4.7, 4.8, or 5.

It is open source so you can do whatever you like, but people (especially native English speakers) will discount your work, because Claude, especially opus 5 writes very very badly.

The people who say they would rather see a typo infested mess of a readme are serious. Or even just write in your native language and then have Claude translate.

Both of those are better indications of proof of effort than a Claude readme.