I read a lot of these posts that sadly leave out the basic parts: what were your prompts? What does it means in this context 'vibe coding'? Did you create an initial setup, and slowly build up? Did you left wverything to the agent understanding, and just pushed approve or reject? There are multiple levels of quality that depends on the input. Did you get into context rotting? 3d math means vector math, matrices, or what? Given claude has a serious problem from march at least, the way u use it is paramount. In our team we all use claude with copilot ( sadly, that is a business directive ), and while excpetional at finding small relationships in components and microservices, had to build a long list of skills just to be barely usable in a 'star trek' way. The bottom line is that it is that you must be extremely precise when asking. Prompt modeling count a lot. Context build as well. For now, unit tests and data/mocks refactors are working extremely well for me, when i define the tests cases. My agents got to a point where i can safely have small peoperty additions with refactors on multiple repositories at once ( ie: i change the contract on microservice a, microservices b,c,and d are automatically updated ). This last part had to.be built thoug, with memory, engrams, and some fune tuing. It is not always a shit: if not nobody would use it. It is not this revolutionary technology that will make humans obsolete as well ( as they are selling it ).

I use it for tedious transformations or needle ones haystack problems.

They are better at searching for themes or concepts then they are at actually doing any "thinking tasks". My rule is that if requires a lot of critical thinking then the LLM can do it.

It's definitely not all they say it is. I think LLMs will fundamentally always have these problems.

I've actually had a much better time using it for in line completion as if recent. It's much better when the scope of the problem it needs to "solve" ( the code it needs to find and compose to complete your line ) is like the Goldilocks zone. And if the answer it gives is bad I just keep typing.

I really hate the way LLM vibe coded slop is written and architecture. To me is clear these things have extremely limited conception. I've compared it to essentially ripping out the human language center, giving it a keyboard and asking it to program for you. It's just no really what it's good at.

I haven't tried any Anthropic models personally.

So far, between the free online chats by OpenAI and DeepSeek, and the smaller models I've run on my own machine, the most useful things I have gotten from it were to treat it as an overeager student that lacks the first-hand experience needed to see the big picture, asking it questions that I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to and seeing if 1) it "understands" what I'm getting at and 2) it can surprise me with a viewpoint I hadn't thought of before.

Using them to double-check my own ideas seems to be marginally useful, especially when there's no qualified human being whose attention I can borrow. Using them as a sort of semantic web search can sometimes get me what I'm looking for faster than Google. If anything, they're an opportunity to exercise critical thinking; if I can tell where it's getting things wrong I can be fairly confident that my own understanding of the problem/subject is pretty solid.

Vibe coding, though? I have yet to see it work out. Maybe as some starting slop so that I can get to work refactoring code (and get the ideas flowing) instead of staring at a blank file.

You can't really just use Claude code raw. You have to give it detailed instructions, use Claude skills,observe results, update prompts. It can be just as consuming, but rather that doing the productive work, you're just reviewing and correcting AI. People who have success using AI have invested time in their setup and are continuously adjusting it.

I would love to read the chat logs.

were almost write every time

Claude: You too are human, human.

I use it and it works. It doesn't give you the right result in one shot, but neither does manual coding. You iterate and prompt again and again. In the end, it saves a ton of time. Engineers are definitely going to lose their jobs because fewer people are needed. I know its tough to accept this and people will go through denial. Part of that is saying the AI code is junk. But, you'll find it can produce junk and quickly fix it into the right solution faster than an engineer can. It sucks, but this is the new reality. The one thing that is cool once you embrace it is that you realize you can customize your favorite apps or even build anything you want from scratch.

Claude is very good when driven by someone who knows how to do the job and demands perfection. However if you give it a prompt and take the first result it is normally junk, make it iterate and things get better.

You need to use plan mode