We are doing this on my team (I am the frontend engineer) and honestly I really miss the old way of doing things.

Written specifications are being reduced in favor of these working prototypes, and now there’s this extra cognitive burden of reading the code and trying to determine what were the intended changes, and what’s the slop that needs to be tossed aside.

We also have to figure out, should we take over this generated PR and make any needed changes? Or do we start over from scratch? There’s often a sense of friction either way.

There have been times where a bunch of unintended changes were generated and I took time to port them over on my reimplementation, and then later on it’s “oops! Sorry! We didn’t mean to change that.”

I get it’s empowering but it does take away from some of the joy I used to find in my work and replaced it with some headaches.

I am in a similar boat. Design and product use Claude to vibe design/code a feature/experience and rapidly prototype it, getting it in front of customers to get feedback with minimal engineering time. Amazing! However, you might be surprised to find out it hasn’t really helped us ship stuff faster overall.

The reason, I believe, is we’ve lost something along the way. Thinking. A non-trivial amount of which is now outsourced to a language model. It paints over the cracks in the prompt, hallucinates how things should work when unspecified, what would normally make someone stop and say “this isn’t quite working”, “how should I communicate this idea” or “what happens when…” has gone. Now, these details are left for after it’s been built proper.

Sure, we can improve the process and reflect more on how to utilise this new technique … but is it better than how things used to be? Yeah nah

Why not ask Claude design to write a document fully specifying the prototype?

old way that was clunky, long feedback cycles and gate keeping UI

no thanks. BE boys do FE now