REVIEW 11 cited by
Good Vibrations? A Qualitative Study of Co-Creation, Communication, Flow, and Trust in Vibe Coding
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Good Vibrations? A Qualitative Study of Co-Creation, Communication, Flow, and Trust in Vibe Coding
read the original abstract
Vibe coding, a term coined by Andrej Karpathy in February 2025, has quickly become a compelling and controversial natural language programming paradigm in AI-assisted software development. Centered on iterative co-design with an AI assistant, vibe coding emphasizes flow and experimentation over strict upfront specification. While initial studies have begun to explore this paradigm, most focus on analyzing code artifacts or proposing theories with limited empirical backing. There remains a need for a grounded understanding of vibe coding as it is perceived and experienced by developers. We present the first systematic qualitative investigation of vibe coding perceptions and practice. Drawing on over 190,000 words from semi-structured interviews, Reddit threads, and LinkedIn posts, we characterize what vibe coding is, why and how developers use it, where it breaks down, and which emerging practices aim to support it. We propose a qualitatively grounded theory of vibe coding centered on conversational interaction with AI, co-creation, and developer flow and joy. We find that AI trust regulates movement along a continuum from delegation to co-creation and supports the developer experience by sustaining flow. We surface recurring pain points and risks in areas including specification, reliability, debugging, latency, code review burden, and collaboration. We also present best practices that have been discovered and shared to mitigate these challenges. We conclude with implications for the future of AI dev tools and directions for researchers investigating vibe coding.
Forward citations
Cited by 11 Pith papers
-
"AI Slop is DDoSing Open Source": Understanding the Impact of AI-Generated Contributions on Open Source Sustainability
After 2025, OSS PR volume rose while merge rates fell—an 18.18% relative drop for one-time contributors—creating a sustainability trap as projects default to defensive closure.
-
Where Did the Variability Go? From Vibe Coding to Product Lines by Regeneration
Exploratory study of vibe-coded projects shows variability is bound at generation time; proposes VbR as an SPL method using LLMs to generate variant-specific code from specifications.
-
Programmers Are Poor and Overconfident Judges of LLM-Generated Assertions
Developers are nearly three times more likely to correctly accept correct LLM assertions than to reject incorrect ones, and accompanying natural-language comments provide no net benefit and can increase overconfidence.
-
Biased or Personalized? The Impact of Personal Information on AI-driven Development
Changing only the prompter's age and gender in AI coding prompts produces statistically significant differences in generated website interface design, template content, and code structure across 800 generated websites...
-
Formal-Method-Guided Vibe Coding: Closing the Verification Loop on AI-Generated Safety-Critical Software Through Model-Driven Engineering
Forge pipeline combines LLM code generation with MDE transformations to produce verifiable artifacts in Dafny, CSP, and Isabelle, iterating on failures to generate standards-relevant evidence for Java code.
-
Where Did the Variability Go? From Vibe Coding to Product Lines by Regeneration
Vibe-coded software shows near-zero in-artifact variability; Variability by Regeneration uses the LLM as a derivation engine that regenerates dead-code-free binaries for each product-line variant.
-
Rule Taxonomy and Evolution in AI IDEs: A Mining and Survey Study
Mixed-methods study creates taxonomy of AI IDE rules from 7310 instances, analyzes evolution drivers, and reports that rule updates raise average artifact compliance from 49.14% to 72.13%.
-
LLMs Corrupt Your Documents When You Delegate
LLMs corrupt an average of 25% of document content during long delegated editing workflows across 52 domains, even frontier models, and agentic tools do not mitigate the issue.
-
Decision-Oriented Programming with Aporia
Aporia makes design decisions explicit and interactive in AI-assisted programming, leading to higher engagement and 5x fewer mental model disagreements with code in a 14-person user study compared to a baseline agent.
-
EditFlow: Benchmarking and Optimizing Code Edit Recommendation Systems via Reconstruction of Developer Flows
EditFlow reconstructs temporal developer editing flows from code changes to benchmark and optimize AI code edit recommenders so they align with natural incremental reasoning rather than static snapshots.
-
A meta-analysis of the effect of generative AI on productivity and learning in programming
Meta-analysis of 23 studies shows moderate productivity gains from GenAI coding assistants (Hedges' g=0.33) but no significant effect on learning (g=0.14).
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.