The dayjob has a LOT of ASes (we peer with a unique AS per-site), so our IRR entries are kind of a lot. When "email templates" was the only way to do things, this was really annoying to update and maintain.
I will say that having RPKI roas for the correct ASes for all of our entries has given my stale-object-deletion-requests more "authoritah" than those requests would have had a few years ago.
Job's excellent IRRexplorer tool has been wonderful in helping figure this out and display it all at a glance, and also in finding cases where "we no longer peer with this group, but we're still in the as-set", and a few where "they peer with us, but not with this AS".
I don't know how many people use irrd or rtconfig or whatever to generate your filter-lists. But even with all the work we (the operator community) is doing to widely deploy RPKI and authenicated IRRs, we still have stuff like this:
whois \-h whois\.radb\.net AS\-PEERS | grep 'as\-set\\|descr\\|source\\|members\\|^\\s\*'
descr: autonomous systems that OpenDNS peers with
members: [like 30 of them, one per line, snipped for brevity]
descr: 4b42 Peering Autonomous System Numbers
[no members: line!]
descr: Peer AS Numbers
descr: swell.network Peers
..four separate organizations felt it would be clever to create a vaguely-named AS-PEERS object, each in a different IRR, because the various IRR's all allow this, and don't check for the existence of objects in another. No IRR's require any special names, nor do they block on any generic names. No IRR sends a member warnings when their objects exist in more than one registry with different data.
I haven't tried to query the peeringdb API to see if any of these are used as advertised AS-Sets for public use, or if people just created public objects for their own internal tools. I'm sure this is not the only case of this.
This might be why we can't have nice things.