Added More Docs

[hayden3456]

This PR adds source-linked, auto-generated docs for the codebase. Before you dismiss it: it includes inline source references, architecture diagrams, and I think it does a solid job. No hard feelings if you’d prefer not to include it.

If you find it useful, I’m building a documentation copilot to help explain why code is the way it is. It will:

• Auto-sync docs
• Asks a few questions on PR's to gather understanding as to why
• Visualize the system at different levels of abstraction

I'm just building this out and would love to chat about what would help most so I can build something genuinely useful.
docforge.net

[CountBleck]

I don't think we can reasonably accept automatically generated documentation, especially if it's generated by non-deterministic LLMs with a tool that isn't publicly available.

As a sidenote, it's a bit overkill with the diagrams, and there are some inaccuracies when describing how the compiler works.

In any case, it's hard to view this PR as credible when it's part of what I'm tempted to describe as a small-scale spam campaign aiming to advertise your product...

[mattjohnsonpint]

Holy Mermaid Diagrams, Batman! Such overkill... many of them show nothing useful.

Seriously, AssemblyScript already has pretty good documentation. There's no need for AI slop docs in the repo.

[mattjohnsonpint]

@hayden3456 - Thinking about your situation a bit more, I'd like to provide some constructive criticism.

Your general idea is not bad. LLMs are decent at creating documentation, and there is likely a place in the market for a tool such as yours. However, your approach is all wrong.

I can see in your GitHub activity that you've sent 18 such PRs thus far to various projects. None of them have said anything close to "Wow! Thank you! We really needed this!" Rather, they have either not responded, responded negatively, or have failed various automation checks. The type of activity you're doing here, while may be well intentioned as a "you could benefit from my project" effort, very much comes across as spam. If you continue to scale out in this manner, GitHub will eventually mark you as being in violation of their terms of use. (You're in a gray area at the moment, but it would clearly be seen as spam at scale.)

Instead of blasting out PRs to repositories (many of which already have good docs and don't need your service), may I suggest a different approach:

• You've already indicate on your website that the tool is free for OSS. Rather than a "contact us", just let people sign in with a GitHub login and supply a repository URL.
• Your tool should check to see that they've met some minimal amount of contribution on the repository. Nobody wants this type of PR from first-timers or total strangers. It should be from either a code owner or verified contributor.
• If the requirements are met, then your tool can send the PR on their behalf.
• You can still use this as a marketing mechanism by correctly indicating that the content was AI generated with DocForge.

This will keep much of your pipeline intact, but make it less spammy and more palatable to OSS maintainers.

If you really feel like you must keep sending PRs en masse, please at least manually check that the project you're targeting actually could benefit from the generated docs. There's no need to make a whole new set of docs for projects that already have spend effort on documentation. Keep in mind that many projects host their docs in different repositories or websites.

With regard to the content itself - your tool is way too fixated on making Mermaid diagrams, and explaining how internals work - IMHO. It should be instead focused on how to use the project (ie., the public APIs, etc.). If you're actually trying to author internal architecture docs for contributors - then the content should make that clear. Most projects do not mix contributor docs and user docs, because they have very different goals!

Best of luck - but please stop the current spamming before it gets out of hand. Thanks.