APILama

As I mentioned in my recent post on X (formerly Twitter), the term “Vibe Coding” has permeated corporate discourse over the past eighteen months. It has taken on a life of its own, transforming from a niche internet meme into a fundamental operational shift in how businesses approach problem-solving.

However, as it scales, I’ve noticed a fascinating—and slightly alarming—divergence. Every function within the company views it through a radically different lens. Operations sees it as a way to bypass bottlenecks; Product sees it as a shortcut to features; and Technology often sees it as a looming mountain of technical debt. Everyone is attempting to harness it for a unique “wow” effect, often in a vacuum.

After discussing this with peers and reflecting on my own experiences as a CTO, I realized this topic deserves more than just a tweet. It requires a manifesto. Because while Vibe Coding is a profound evolution, it brings with it a collision of cultures that we must manage carefully.

The Definition of “Vibe”

To me, Vibe Coding in a business context isn’t just about writing sloppy Python. It is the ability to generate outcomes through Large Language Models (LLMs) without necessarily possessing deep coding knowledge. It is the democratization of “building.”

For an Operations Manager, this is magic. They can suddenly script a workflow that automates their morning reporting without waiting three weeks for a ticket to clear the engineering backlog. For a Product Manager, it means prototyping a functional idea in an afternoon rather than a sprint.

This capability is, without a doubt, a blessing. I firmly believe that a modern company’s success is directly correlated to the number of experiments it can run. If Vibe Coding allows non-technical teams to run 100 experiments a week instead of 10, the probability of finding the next great product or efficiency unlock skyrockets. We must embrace this. We must not kill the vibe.

The “Works on My Machine” Trap

However, there is a dangerous flip side. The speed of Vibe Coding often creates an illusion of competence and completeness.

The primary challenge we face today is the friction between this new speed and established software engineering practices. A department head might create a working prototype with an LLM and ask, “Why should I wait for Engineering? It works right here.”

They are ignoring thirty years of accumulated software engineering wisdom. They are seeing the “Happy Path”—the version that works when the input is perfect and the server load is zero. They are missing the invisible scaffolding that makes software viable: security protocols, scalability, error handling, maintainability, and repeatable deployment pipelines.

We are seeing a resurgence of the “works on my machine” mindset, but on a corporate scale. Just because an LLM spit out a script that processed a CSV file once, does not mean that script is ready to handle sensitive customer data in a production environment. The world of software engineering is studying the philosophy of how systems fail, not just how they run. Vibe Coding rarely asks “what if this breaks?”

The Great Dipole: Experimentation vs. Production

So, how do we resolve this? We cannot ban Vibe Coding—that would be stifling innovation. But we cannot let it run unchecked into production—that would be negligent.

The solution lies in recognizing the Vibe-Engineering Dipole.

We need to bifurcate our thinking. Vibe Coding is the engine of Discovery. It is the domain of chaos, speed, and disposable code. It is where we find the “what.” In this phase, we should encourage everyone—from marketing to HR—to build, break, and iterate using whatever AI tools they have.

But once a “Vibe” experiment proves its value—once we see that this tool actually saves money or this feature delights customers—we must transition to the domain of Delivery.

This is where the seasoned engineers come in. This is where we take the prototype and rewrite it with stability, security, and scale in mind. This handover is critical. We need to stop viewing Engineering as the “Department of No” and start viewing them as the “Department of Scale.”

A Culture of Respect

This transition requires a cultural shift. We need a culture that validates both sides of the coin.

First, we must incentivize experimentation. We must tell our teams that it is okay to fail. In fact, if you aren’t failing at some Vibe Coding experiments, you aren’t pushing hard enough. There is no shame in a prototype that doesn’t work out.

Second, we must protect and respect our engineers. We cannot dismiss the skepticism of a Senior Engineer with 20 years of experience as “legacy thinking.” When they ask about data privacy or race conditions, they aren’t trying to slow you down; they are trying to keep the company alive. There are things an LLM will never tell you because you didn’t know enough to ask.

The Manifesto

So, here is my personal stance, my manifesto for the future:

1. Embrace the Vibe: Let the organization code. Let them build. The barrier to entry has collapsed, and we should flood through the gates.
2. Respect the Craft: Acknowledge that “making it work” is different from “engineering it to last.”
3. Bridge the Gap: Create a clear path for successful experiments to be adopted and professionalized by Engineering.

True success lies in this integration. It is not Vibe Coding vs. Software Engineering. It is Vibe Coding feeding Software Engineering.

Let’s keep the vibe alive, but let’s make sure the foundation is solid.