> “Agentic engineering” feels like the response of engineers who use AI to write code, but want to maintain the skill distinction to the pure “vibe coders.”

If there's such. The border is vague at most.

There're "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" when working with systems. In this terms, there's no distinction between vibe-coding and agentic engineering.

▲

simonw 3 hours ago | parent [-]

My definition to "vibe coding" is the one where you prompt without ever looking at the code that's being produced.

The moment you start paying attention to the code it's not vibe coding any more.

Update: I added that definition to the article: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...

▲

zx8080 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What if you review 50%? Or 10%? Or only 1%, is it not vibe coding yet?

Where is the borderline?

▲

simonw 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the borderline is when you take responsibility for the code, and stop blaming the LLM for any mistakes.

That's the level of responsibility I want to see from people using LLMs in a professional context. I want them to take full ownership of the changes they are producing.

▲

zx8080 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Sounds good, however the bar is probably too far and far too idealistic.

The effects of vibecoding destroys trust inside teams and orgs, between engineers.

▲

Toutouxc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And are you not seeing that level of responsibility?

	▲	simonw an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm trying to demonstrate that in my own work, but from the comments I see in places like Hacker News there are a lot of people who aren't. I wrote a note about that here: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...

▲

maxbond 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't blame the agent for mistakes in my vibe coded personal software, it's always my fault. To me it's like this:

80%+: You don't understand the codebase. Correctness is ensured through manual testing and asking the agent to find bugs. You're only concerned with outcomes, the code is sloppy.

50%: You understand the structure of the codebase, you are skimming changes in your session, but correctness is still ensured mostly through manual testing and asking the agent to review. Code quality is questionable but you're keeping it from spinning out of control. Critically, you are hands on enough to ensure security, data integrity, the stuff that really counts at the end of the day.

20%-: You've designed the structure of the codebase, you are writing most of the code, you are probably only copypasting code from a chatbot if you're generating code at all. The code is probably well made and maintainable.

	▲	Toutouxc an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I feel like there’s one more dimension. For me, 95%+ of code that I ship has been written (i.e. typed out) by a LLM, but the architecture and structure, down to method and variable names, is mine, and completely my responsibility.

▲

000ooo000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Have to consult the Definition Engineers to find out