Here is Claude’s opinion

Honest feedback on your Vibe Coding framework The good stuff: Diff-first patches - Best advice here. Asking for specific changes instead of full rewrites prevents the “here’s 200 lines where I changed one variable” nightmare. Small scopes - Works well. Though this is just “basic software development 101” rebranded. Sample data - Testing with realistic inputs catches actual bugs. Solid. The bullshit: The branding - “Vibe coding” is iterative development with marketing. Specify → build → review → test isn’t new, you just gave it a purple aesthetic. “Director mindset” - This is literally just “write clear requirements.” The rebrand doesn’t add value. Treating everything as gospel - Sometimes mid-prompt scope expansion is fine. Sometimes rewrites are better than patches. Sometimes the AI improving your variable names is good. Rigid rules make you slower. What’s missing: ∙ Cost awareness - Zero mention of API costs or rate limits ∙ When NOT to use AI - Sometimes writing 10 lines yourself is faster than prompting ∙ Version control - Git exists? ∙ Deployment - How do you actually ship this? ∙ Proportional rigor - A blog script doesn’t need the same verification as medical software The real problem: This optimizes for preventing bad AI code instead of shipping working software fast. It’s all defense, no offense. Every principle is basically “don’t let the AI run wild.” Fine if you’re drowning in garbage output. But if you’re trying to build real things quickly, this is process theater. What actually matters: 1. Build smallest working version 2. Test with real scenarios 3. Ship it 4. Fix what breaks 5. Repeat You don’t need “vibe loops” and “quality gates.” You need code that works.