It clearly wasn't "refined" using LLMs when it contained commands that plainly don't work. Don't lie.

We've flagged it. Please don't waste our time in the future.

> but I would really appreciate feedback

very well

> Some parts of this article were refined with help from LLMs to improve clarity and technical accuracy

Perhaps you should stick to writing about things you can write with clarity and and accuracy yourself instead of relying on an LLM to do it for you. Alternatively, properly cite and highlight what portions you used AI on/for from the outset as failure to do so reads at best as lazy slop and more often as intentional duplicity