[kanywst]

• README (en/ja): state that this is a personal log, not a product, and that outside issues/PRs aren't expected. This makes the demand-axis exemption used by the bellman archive check explicit in the repo itself.
• Add LICENSE (CC BY 4.0) and a License section to both READMEs. Previously there was no license (all rights reserved).

Verified: markdownlint-cli2 0 issues, npm run build passes.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

• Configuration used: defaults
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 44e96a24-dd7e-44ca-b98b-229d475bf6d4

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[claude]

CC BY 4.0 is applied to the whole repository, but the repo also holds code (scripts/*.mjs, src/, e2e/, tests/). Creative Commons advises against using its licenses for software, and CC BY 4.0 has no patent grant. Consider a split: CC BY 4.0 for knowledge/, program/ and reviews/, and a software license such as MIT for the code. As written, the line doesn't say which parts it covers.

The license also covers log/ (training log and body.csv), which is personal body data. If that isn't meant to be reusable, say so here. The CC text asks licensors to mark material that isn't covered.

The LICENSE file has no copyright notice or attribution name. A reuser has nothing to credit, so "BY" is ambiguous. Add a line such as "Copyright (c) 2026 , https://github.com/0-draft/muscle" to the README.

[claude]

The English README has the same scope problem (see the comment on README.md:108). Both languages should state the scope and the attribution holder in the same way. The JA text currently just says "CC BY 4.0" with no scope.

[claude]

The EN and JA README additions match each other, and the LICENSE file is the standard CC BY 4.0 text. I did not diff it against the upstream legalcode. The open points are about scope:

• CC BY 4.0 is applied to the whole repo, including the code, which Creative Commons discourages for software. A separate software license for scripts/, src/ and the tests would avoid that.
• The license has no named copyright holder, so there is nothing to attribute.
• It also covers the personal log/ data, and that isn't stated or excluded.

Details are in the two inline comments on the README license sections.