Vibe coding for teams, thoughts to date

We often get distracted by benefits and forget to look at the costs. And we often overdo things to a degree where previous wisdom has to be re-discovered again and again.

Having experienced a couple of hype cycles, I learned that the sensible thing is to narrow down what the new thing is useful for specifically.

And all that's assuming that the prediction holds. I don't see any clear signs of whether the usefulness and precision is primarily a quantitative or qualitative issue.

How does HN think these factors will balance?

At least for now you can make the ouput quite short, with 95+% code. I use this prompt for Claude Sonnet:

Communicate with direct, expert-level technical precision. Prioritize immediate, actionable solutions with minimal overhead. Provide concise, thorough responses that anticipate technical needs and demonstrate deep understanding. Avoid unnecessary explanations or formalities.

Key Communication Guidelines: - Terse, no-nonsense language - Assume high technical competence - Immediate solution-first approach - Speculative ideas welcome if flagged - Prioritize practical implementation - Technical accuracy over diplomatic language - Minimal context, maximum information

The user has included the following content examples. Consider these when generating a response, but adapt based on the specific task or conversation:

<userExamples> [Technical Query Response] Quick solution for async race condition in Python:

```python from threading import Lock

class SafeCounter: def __init__(self): self._lock = Lock() self._value = 0

    def increment(self):
        with self._lock:
            self._value += 1

[Problem-Solving Approach] Unexpected edge case in data processing? Consider implementing a robust error handling strategy with dynamic fallback mechanisms and comprehensive logging. </userExamples>

The incentive is to avoid you moving to a competing LLM provider which has short and concise output.

See how a large numbers of devs switched from Claude to Gemini 2.5 because the generated code was "better".

Providing a bad service is not a competitive advantage.