Replies: 2 comments 3 replies
-
Hey, thanks for picking this up and for thinking it through before opening a PR, appreciate it. A few things upfront so you've got room to do this your way: On the synopsis — On the core idea — the one thing that should stay is the "multi" part. This is a steganography tool (not a detector), and it should cover at least 5 different stego formats/techniques, ideally 6. They all need to be solid implementations — I'd rather have 5 good ones than 6 where one is half-baked. On the 3-PR split — fine by me. Each PR should ship with tests for what it adds — not exhaustive, just enough to confirm each technique actually round-trips correctly. Don't go overboard. You can save the lint pass for the end if that's easier. On stack/tooling — pick whatever you want, but a few hard requirements per language:
On references — the two you picked aren't the best choices:
Better references for senior-level Python style in this repo:
Look at those for code structure, On the On AI usage — I'm going to be direct because it's relevant to how I'll review: Using AI to write code is totally fine even heavily, if anything I recommend it. What I push back on is unsupervised AI work (the "let it rip and come back when it says it's done" approach). The distinction matters: you're the project manager, the AI is the dev. You make the big calls, you micromanage the scope, and you verify the output. A few things that meaningfully raise the quality bar when working with AI on a project this size:
None of this is gatekeeping or meant to scare you off, but fair warning: there are ~70 projects in this repo and the bar I'm holding them all to is "role-model code people study," not "good enough and it works," so expect strict review feedback even when the work is solid. Go ahead and start on PR 1 whenever you're ready. Ping me if anything's unclear as you go. 
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Proposed Implementation Plan: STEGANOGRAPHY Multi-ToolHello, I have reviewed the project documentation for the STEGANOGRAPHY Multi-Tool described in To keep development organized and maintainable, I propose implementing the project in three sequential pull requests rather than a single large contribution. This approach provides several advantages:
Project ScopeThe tool will provide a unified CLI interface and support the following steganography techniques:
PR 1: Foundation and Core ArchitectureObjectives:
PR 2: Audio and QR SupportObjectives:
PR 3: PDF and Git Metadata TechniquesObjectives:
Each pull request will include appropriate unit tests, integration tests where applicable, and documentation updates to ensure maintainability and ease of adoption. Feedback Requested
I am happy to adapt the plan, scope, or technology choices based on project requirements and maintainer feedback. My goal is to ensure the implementation aligns with the repository’s standards while keeping the review and integration process as smooth as possible. Thank you, and I look forward to your feedback. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Proposed Implementation Plan: STEGANOGRAPHY Multi-ToolHello, I have reviewed the project documentation for the STEGANOGRAPHY Multi-Tool described in To keep development organized and maintainable, I propose implementing the project in three sequential pull requests rather than a single large contribution. This approach provides several advantages:
Project ScopeThe tool will provide a unified CLI interface and support the following steganography techniques:
PR 1: Foundation and Core ArchitectureObjectives:
PR 2: Audio and QR SupportObjectives:
PR 3: PDF and Git Metadata TechniquesObjectives:
Each pull request will include appropriate unit tests, integration tests where applicable, and documentation updates to ensure maintainability and ease of adoption. Feedback Requested
I am happy to adapt the plan, scope, or technology choices based on project requirements and maintainer feedback. My goal is to ensure the implementation aligns with the repository’s standards while keeping the review and integration process as smooth as possible. Thank you, and I look forward to your feedback. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Broo im already doing this project |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Brother😂 Did you just rewrite what the original guy proposed initially? Of which I also replied to him answering the questions he asked....the same ones you did. Dude are you brain dead or something? I mean that genuinely. —C
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi! I'd like to implement the Steganography Multi-Tool from SYNOPSES/beginner/Steganography.Multi.Tool.md. I confirmed it's not in PROJECTS/beginner/ and didn't find related open PRs.
Given the spec covers 6 different stego formats plus a unified CLI and AES wrapper, I'd like to propose splitting it into 3 sequential PRs rather than one massive submission. Easier to review, easier to course-correct if any design decision doesn't match your vision, and keeps each PR focused.
Proposed split:
PR 1 — Foundation: project scaffolding, unified CLI with subcommands, AES encryption wrapper, image LSB (PNG/BMP), zero-width Unicode text. Establishes the architecture that the other formats will plug into.
PR 2 — Audio + QR: WAV/FLAC sample LSB encoding, QR via Reed-Solomon error-correction exploitation.
PR 3 — PDF + Git commits: PDF whitespace/invisible-text/metadata techniques, git metadata encoding.
Each PR ships with tests and docs for its scope.
A few questions before I start:
Are you happy with this phased approach, or would you prefer a single PR? Any preference on dependencies (Pillow for images, cryptography for AES, qrcode + reedsolo, etc.) or should I keep it as minimal as possible? Looking at metadata-scrubber-tool and keylogger as references for code style and the learn/ docs structure — anything else I should look at to stay consistent?
Thanks!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions