I agree with you as far as project size for vibe-coding goes - as-in often not even looking at the generated code.

But I have no issues with using Claude Code to write code in larger projects, including adapting to existing patterns, it’s just not vibe coding - I architect the modules, and I know more or less exactly what I want the end result to be. I review all code in detail to make sure it’s precisely what I want. You just have to write good instructions and manage the context well (give it sample code to reference, have agent.md files for guidance, etc.)

▲

OptionOfT 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I know more or less exactly what I want the end result to be

This is key.

And this is also why AI doesn't work that well for me. I don't know yet how I want it to work. Part of the work I do is discovering this, so it can be defined.

▲

xur17 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I've found this to be the case as well. My typical workflow is:

1. Have the ai come up with an implementation plan based on my requirements

2. Iterate on the implementation plan / tweak as needed, and write it to a markdown file

3. Have it implement the above plan based on the markdown file.

On projects where we split up the task into well defined, smaller tickets, this works pretty well. For larger stuff that is less well defined, I do feel like it's less efficient, but to be fair, I am also less efficient when building this stuff myself. For both humans and robots, smaller, well defined tickets are better for both development and code review.

	▲	cube2222 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, this exactly. And if the AI wanders in confusion during #3, it means the plan isn’t well-defined enough.

▲

blks 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sounds like so much work just not to write it yourself.