Vibe coding
Prompt-led exploration and rapid first shapes.
Useful when
- Fast while the problem is still uncertain
Watch for
- Does not define a complete delivery or handover system
01 · Comparison
Vibe coding is an exploration mode; agentic development is an end-to-end delivery system. Five criteria show why they should not carry the same responsibility.
5 decision criteria · first-person editorial guidance
02 · The two modes
Prompt-led exploration and rapid first shapes.
A delivery method with scope, architecture, implementation, verification, and handover owners.
03 · Decision criteria
| Criterion | Vibe coding | Agentic development | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early exploration | Low-friction conversation while the problem is still taking shape. | Requires enough definition to establish scope and controls. | Favours Vibe coding |
| Scope ownership | Scope can move with the conversation. | The intended outcome, exclusions, and decision owner are explicit. | Favours Agentic development |
| Verification | Verification must be added as a separate discipline. | Representative checks and acceptance decisions are part of the delivery sequence. | Favours Agentic development |
| Operational control | Permissions, human review, and recovery are not defined by the mode itself. | Permissions, control points, limitations, and recovery ownership are named before handover. | Favours Agentic development |
| Handover | The output may be useful, but the mode does not define an operator-ready transfer. | The proposal defines the source, documentation, operating guidance, and handover decision. | Favours Agentic development |
My recommendation · reviewed Jul 13, 2026
The 4–1 result follows from the decision being evaluated: responsibility for a scoped implementation. Vibe coding wins early exploration. Agentic development owns the later obligations—scope, architecture, controls, verification, and handover.