I don't think the OP was using the classic definition of vibe coding, it seemed to me they were using the looser definition where vibe coding means "using AI to write code".

▲

acedTrex 11 hours ago | parent [-]

The blog appears to imply that the author only opened the codebase after a significant period of time.

> It’s not until I opened up the full codebase and read its latest state cover to cover that I began to see what we theorized and hoped was only a diminishing artifact of earlier models: slop.

This is true vibe coding, they exclusively interacted with the project through the LLM, and only looked at its proposed diffs in a vacuum.

If they had been monitoring the code in aggregate the entire time they likely would have seen this duplicative property immediately.

	▲	simonw 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The paragraph before the one you quoted there reads: > What’s worse is code that agents write looks plausible and impressive while it’s being written and presented to you. It even looks good in pull requests (as both you and the agent are well trained in what a “good” pull request looks like). Which made me think that they were indeed reading at least some of the code - classic vibe coding doesn't involve pull requests! - but weren't paying attention to the bigger picture / architecture until later on.