Check for existing issues
Describe the feature
Recently I've been wanting to use vale for github CLI for my Common Lisp and Racket docstrings, comment blocks, etc.
It's possible to define rules via the yml specifically, but, it would be more convenient if support for these two languages was out of the box.
However, I do not know the GO language; I do know programming, thus, I can understand what I'm looking at, but, I was thinking about using Gemini AI to generate the two files: SBCL.GO and Racket.GO.
Edit 4/30/26 3:09 PM UTC: instead of "SBCL.GO" , "commonlisp.GO might be for accurate.
The reason I came up with the idea to use AI, is because looking at the source code, I had realized that language support is relatively simple for Vale (unless I'm missing something?), so there shouldn't be much risk with low quality output from an AI, especially if I use py.GO as reference in a given prompt.
But, I wanted to run this idea through maintainers for Vale first, before actually submitting a PR.
If the idea of using AI for a PR is seen as ethically gray(though, I will clarify accreditation is to AI in the PR), then I will not push further on the matter, no worries.
I would run it through the provided test suite, verify code structure with my actual eyes, and ofc, the maintainers would look at the code provided in my PR, so in-theory if anything is wrong then it can be dealt with promptly(this is a pun).
Or if the maintainers wanted to write the code, that works too!
Edit 4/30/26 3:02 PM UTC:
In regards to smacker's tree sitter: I am not particularly sure if they have a common lisp submodule, but, I do know there is a tree sitter for racket and common lisp here atleast:
https://github.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-commonlisp
Check for existing issues
Describe the feature
Recently I've been wanting to use vale for github CLI for my Common Lisp and Racket docstrings, comment blocks, etc.
It's possible to define rules via the yml specifically, but, it would be more convenient if support for these two languages was out of the box.
However, I do not know the GO language; I do know programming, thus, I can understand what I'm looking at, but, I was thinking about using Gemini AI to generate the two files:
SBCL.GOand Racket.GO.Edit 4/30/26 3:09 PM UTC: instead of "SBCL.GO" , "commonlisp.GO might be for accurate.
The reason I came up with the idea to use AI, is because looking at the source code, I had realized that language support is relatively simple for Vale (unless I'm missing something?), so there shouldn't be much risk with low quality output from an AI, especially if I use py.GO as reference in a given prompt.
But, I wanted to run this idea through maintainers for Vale first, before actually submitting a PR.
If the idea of using AI for a PR is seen as ethically gray(though, I will clarify accreditation is to AI in the PR), then I will not push further on the matter, no worries.
I would run it through the provided test suite, verify code structure with my actual eyes, and ofc, the maintainers would look at the code provided in my PR, so in-theory if anything is wrong then it can be dealt with promptly(this is a pun).
Or if the maintainers wanted to write the code, that works too!
Edit 4/30/26 3:02 PM UTC:
In regards to smacker's tree sitter: I am not particularly sure if they have a common lisp submodule, but, I do know there is a tree sitter for racket and common lisp here atleast:
https://github.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-commonlisp