pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.12491 · v2 · pith:GWXL5TLBnew · submitted 2025-09-15 · 💻 cs.SE

Good Vibrations? A Qualitative Study of Co-Creation, Communication, Flow, and Trust in Vibe Coding

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords codingvibeflowco-creationcenteredcodedeveloperdevelopers
0
0 comments X
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.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Where Did the Variability Go? From Vibe Coding to Product Lines by Regeneration

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    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.

  2. LLMs Corrupt Your Documents When You Delegate

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    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.

  3. Decision-Oriented Programming with Aporia

    cs.HC 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    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.

  4. EditFlow: Benchmarking and Optimizing Code Edit Recommendation Systems via Reconstruction of Developer Flows

    cs.SE 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    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.

  5. A meta-analysis of the effect of generative AI on productivity and learning in programming

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    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).