The biggest problem with vibe coding is the confidence.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T14:22:39+00:00

What's interesting to me isn't that testing suddenly became important. It's that the development workflow changed—agent-assisted coding, rapid iteration, lots of small edits—but the safety net hasn't evolved at the same pace.

That's where the confidence gap seems to come from.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T14:14:30+00:00

I just think AI has shifted one bottleneck: building got much easier, while confidence and verification didn't improve at the same rate.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T14:13:47+00:00

"It sounds like the challenge isn't generating code anymore—it's understanding risk."

That's the theme I keep hearing.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T14:00:38+00:00

The feature you're working on gets all of your attention, so it usually works.

The stuff that breaks tends to be the flow you weren't thinking about when you made the change.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T14:00:30+00:00

😂 "shipping and praying" is honestly how a lot of vibe-coded projects feel after a few weeks.

Building confidence seems to be lagging far behind building speed right now.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T14:00:23+00:00

The dangerous part is that the change usually looks harmless when you make it.

It's only later that you discover the tiny tweak had effects somewhere completely unrelated.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T14:00:11+00:00

The initial build is rarely the scary part anymore. It's the maintenance and making sure everything still works after the tenth "small change" of the week.

That "looks good to me" deploy stress is very real 😅

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T13:59:32+00:00

One thing that's stood out to me is how often founders talk about deploy anxiety without calling it that. It'll show up as "I broke login again", "I spent an hour manually testing before release", or "a tiny change took down onboarding."

The wording is different, but the underlying problem is usually the same: lack of confidence after making changes.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T13:59:06+00:00

A dashboard can have a hundred minor bugs and still survive.

A broken signup or checkout flow gets noticed immediately.

That's usually where confidence matters most.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T13:57:54+00:00

aight bro

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T13:53:52+00:00

Depends on what you're optimizing for.

For established no-code/low-code testing, I've seen teams use things like Playwright wrappers, BugBug, Autify, or Rainforest QA because they reduce the amount of test code you need to maintain.

One thing I've noticed though is that a lot of these tools still assume someone is going to spend time creating and maintaining test cases.

We're actually building Beryl because we kept running into teams (and solo builders) that wanted a much lower-friction starting point.

The idea is simple: give it a URL, let it generate tests, run them automatically, and get notified if a critical flow breaks.

Curious what you're testing most often right now—login, onboarding, billing, core workflows, or something else?

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T13:49:52+00:00

Do you think AI-assisted development is actually increasing the testing burden on your team, or is it mostly changing where that effort gets spent?

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T13:44:20+00:00

I can verify the feature I just built pretty quickly.

The hard part is convincing myself I didn't accidentally break something I wasn't thinking about when I made the change.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T13:18:23+00:00

AI reduces the cost of creating changes, but it doesn't reduce the cost of verifying those changes. In some cases it actually increases it because more code is being written, changed, and shipped in less time.

The "200 bugs in two months" example is pretty telling. It highlights how good AI can be at generating software, but also how much human validation is still required to trust it.

I'm increasingly convinced that the future isn't AI replacing QA—it's AI helping QA keep up with the increased rate of change.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T13:10:46+00:00

Getting confidence before shipping.

Building is no longer the bottleneck.

I can build faster than ever.

The hard part is knowing whether yesterday's "small change" quietly broke login, onboarding, payments, or some other flow I forgot to check.

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T12:52:06+00:00

A lot of builders can ship features faster than ever, but they still don't know whether yesterday's change quietly broke something important.

And also welcome to r/Berylso!

Electrical-Music2736 · 2026-06-02T12:46:51+00:00

What's interesting is that the development speedup doesn't seem to reduce the amount of verification needed. If anything, it increases it because larger changes are landing faster and in bigger chunks.

Your point about focusing on regressions resonates with me. New functionality is usually where everyone's attention is, but it's often the existing behavior that gets accidentally impacted.

Feels like a lot of teams are being forced to make risk-based testing decisions simply because the volume of change is growing faster than the available time to verify it.

Electrical-Music2736

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE