To comment on the two sibling responses to my post here in parallel.

I think it gives very valuable insights to tackle the question: "What if we wanted to apply 'vibe-coding' as an SWE technique?"

There's a lot of interesting nuance to cover:

- How can we ensure that agents produce the codebases we want?

- How can we reduce the cognitive burden of code review?

- Do we actually need to review everything?

- How can we safely vibe-code in regulated environments (ISO 27001)?

- How can we use vibe-coding to safely evolve production-grade systems?

- ... etc, etc

I find this approach much more interesting than dismissing vibe-coding as non-SWE.

We really do need to review everything. Whether that's actually being done in practice with enough competence was already a significant risk before LLMs.

LLMs today can reduce cognitive load, but only when it gets it right (about half of the time). They're better than nothing if you don't have anyone else to help review. They still have a very long way to go compared to two or more human reviewers that know the project well.

I don't have answers for the other questions. They seem irresponsible, not because "vibe code bad", but because there should already be very restrictive templates in place for production and regulated environments. Wanting to vibe anything in there implies those environments are already broken enough to allow shenanigans.