Remember when “vibe coding” was a joke? That thing junior developers did with ChatGPT, throwing prompts at an AI and hoping something useful came out? When architects rolled their eyes at developers who admitted they “just asked the AI to figure it out”?
Those days are over.
What started as experimental, chaotic exploration with AI coding assistants has matured into a legitimate architectural practice. Vibe-driven development—once dismissed as reckless and unprofessional—is now being adopted by senior engineers and architects who recognize its power for rapid iteration, architectural exploration, and informed decision-making.
This isn’t about abandoning architectural rigor. It’s about recognizing that the relationship between intuition, exploration, and structured design has fundamentally changed in the AI era. Vibe coding has grown up, and it’s becoming an essential tool in the architect’s toolkit.
Let’s establish what we’re talking about. Vibe coding refers to a development approach that prioritizes rapid iteration and intuitive exploration over upfront planning. Instead of spending weeks on architectural diagrams before writing a single line of code, you start coding based on intuition, using AI assistants to quickly test ideas and iterate toward solutions.
Traditional Architecture:
Requirements → Design Documents → Architecture Diagrams →
Implementation Plan → Code Review → Development → TestingVibe-Driven Architecture:
Problem Understanding → Rapid Prototyping (AI-assisted) →
Pattern Discovery → Architecture Extraction → Refinement → ProductionThe key difference? Vibe coding treats code as a medium for architectural thinking, not just as the final output of architectural planning.
When ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot first exploded onto the scene, vibe coding was pure chaos:
Example of early vibe coding:
# Prompt: "write a REST API for user management"
# Result: 300 lines of code with no error handling,
# security issues, and inconsistent naming
@app.route('/api/user/<id>')
def get_user(id):
user = db.query(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id={id}")
return user # SQL injection, no validation, wrong return typeAs developers gained experience, patterns emerged:
Evolved vibe coding:
# Prompt: "create a secure REST endpoint for user retrieval
# with proper error handling and validation"
from flask import jsonify
from marshmallow import ValidationError
@app.route('/api/users/<int:user_id>', methods=['GET'])
@require_auth
def get_user(user_id: int):
"""Retrieve user by ID with security and validation."""
try:
user = UserService.get_by_id(user_id)
if not user:
return jsonify({'error': 'User not found'}), 404
return jsonify(user.to_dict()), 200
except ValidationError as e:
return jsonify({'error': str(e)}), 400Now we’re seeing vibe coding evolve into a structured practice:
Traditional approach: Spend two weeks debating whether to use microservices or a modular monolith. Create diagrams. Schedule more meetings.
Vibe-driven approach: Spend two hours implementing skeletal versions of both with AI assistance. Actually run them. Measure the differences. Make an informed decision.
// Morning: Prototype microservice approach
// app-service/users/index.js
export class UserService {
async createUser(data) {
// AI helps scaffold service boundaries
const validation = await this.validateUser(data);
const user = await this.repository.create(validation);
await this.eventBus.publish('user.created', user);
return user;
}
}
// Afternoon: Prototype modular monolith
// src/modules/users/service.js
export class UserModule {
async createUser(data) {
// Same functionality, different architecture
const validation = await validateUser(data);
const user = await UserRepository.create(validation);
await EventBus.emit('user:created', user);
return user;
}
}
// Evening: Benchmark both, compare complexity
// Decision made with actual data, not assumptionsExperienced architects know that the best architectures often emerge from understanding the problem deeply, not from applying templates. Vibe coding accelerates this discovery process.
Instead of:
You do:
Should you use PostgreSQL’s JSONB or MongoDB? Should you adopt that new framework? Is Kafka overkill for your use case?
With vibe coding, architects can prototype integration patterns in hours, not weeks:
# Quick vibe prototype: Compare database approaches
# Option 1: PostgreSQL JSONB
from sqlalchemy import Column, Integer, JSON
from sqlalchemy.dialects.postgresql import JSONB
class Event(Base):
__tablename__ = 'events'
id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True)
data = Column(JSONB)
@classmethod
def query_nested(cls, path, value):
return session.query(cls).filter(
cls.data[path].astext == value
)
# Option 2: MongoDB
from pymongo import MongoClient
class EventStore:
def __init__(self):
self.collection = MongoClient().db.events
def query_nested(self, path, value):
return self.collection.find({path: value})
# Benchmark both, test actual queries, measure complexity
# Make decision based on real data, not blog postsOne of the biggest revelations for architects: vibe coding produces actual, runnable code that serves as architectural documentation.
Traditional architecture docs go stale within weeks. Vibe-driven prototypes stay current because they’re the actual implementation (or its foundation).
// This isn't just a diagram - it's runnable code
// that demonstrates the architecture
interface EventBus {
publish(event: DomainEvent): Promise<void>;
subscribe(eventType: string, handler: EventHandler): void;
}
interface DomainEvent {
aggregateId: string;
eventType: string;
timestamp: Date;
payload: unknown;
}
// This code IS the architecture documentation
// It compiles, it runs, it demonstrates patterns
// It can't go out of sync because it IS the systemHere’s how modern architects are integrating vibe coding into their practice:
Start with a clear problem and architectural intuition:
Hypothesis: "A CQRS pattern with event sourcing might solve
our consistency issues while improving read performance."Use AI to implement a minimal version quickly:
// Prompt: "Implement basic CQRS with event sourcing for user domain"
// Result: Working prototype in 30 minutes
// Write Model
class UserCommandHandler {
async handle(command: CreateUserCommand): Promise<void> {
const events = UserAggregate.create(command);
await this.eventStore.append(events);
await this.eventBus.publish(events);
}
}
// Read Model
class UserProjection {
async on(event: UserCreatedEvent): Promise<void> {
await this.readDb.insert({
id: event.userId,
name: event.name,
email: event.email,
createdAt: event.timestamp
});
}
}Actually use the prototype to understand implications:
# Load test the architecture
import asyncio
from locust import HttpUser, task, between
class ArchitectureStressTest(HttpUser):
wait_time = between(1, 3)
@task
def test_write_path(self):
# How does CQRS handle concurrent writes?
self.client.post("/commands/create-user", json={
"name": "Test User",
"email": f"user-{uuid4()}@example.com"
})
@task(3) # 3x more reads than writes
def test_read_path(self):
# What's the consistency lag?
self.client.get(f"/queries/users/{uuid4()}")
# Results reveal architectural characteristics:
# - Write latency: 45ms
# - Read latency: 8ms
# - Consistency lag: 200-500ms (eventual consistency trade-off)
# - Complexity: High (is it worth it?)Document what you learned:
## CQRS + Event Sourcing Analysis
### Pros Discovered:
- Read queries 5x faster than traditional approach
- Write operations cleanly separated
- Full audit trail built-in
- Scales well horizontally
### Cons Discovered:
- Eventual consistency causes UX issues in our use case
- Operational complexity significantly higher
- Event store adds infrastructure cost
- Team learning curve steep
### Decision:
Not appropriate for our user management domain.
Consider for analytics/reporting domain instead.If the architecture is validated, the vibe prototype becomes the foundation:
// The prototype becomes production code
// Refine error handling, add observability, improve tests
class UserCommandHandler {
constructor(
private eventStore: EventStore,
private eventBus: EventBus,
private logger: Logger,
private metrics: MetricsCollector
) {}
async handle(command: CreateUserCommand): Promise<Result<UserId>> {
const startTime = Date.now();
try {
// Validate command
const validation = await this.validator.validate(command);
if (!validation.isValid) {
this.metrics.increment('command.validation.failed');
return Result.fail(validation.errors);
}
// Create aggregate and events
const events = UserAggregate.create(command);
// Persist
await this.eventStore.append(events, {
expectedVersion: -1, // New aggregate
metadata: { userId: command.actorId, timestamp: new Date() }
});
// Publish
await this.eventBus.publish(events);
this.metrics.histogram('command.duration', Date.now() - startTime);
this.logger.info('User created', { userId: events[0].aggregateId });
return Result.ok(events[0].aggregateId);
} catch (error) {
this.logger.error('Command failed', { error, command });
this.metrics.increment('command.failed');
return Result.fail(error);
}
}
}1. Prompt Engineering for Architecture
Learn to ask AI tools architectural questions:
❌ Bad: "Create a user service"
✅ Good: "Create a user service that follows clean architecture,
with separate layers for domain, application, and infrastructure.
Include dependency injection and repository pattern."
❌ Bad: "Make it faster"
✅ Good: "Add caching layer using Redis for frequently accessed
user data. Implement cache-aside pattern with 5-minute TTL.
Include cache invalidation on user updates."2. Architectural Constraints as Code
Define your architectural rules as linting rules:
// .eslintrc.js - Enforce architecture through tooling
module.exports = {
rules: {
// Vibe code must respect architectural boundaries
'import/no-restricted-paths': ['error', {
zones: [
{
target: './src/domain',
from: './src/infrastructure',
message: 'Domain layer cannot depend on infrastructure'
},
{
target: './src/application',
from: './src/presentation',
message: 'Application layer cannot depend on presentation'
}
]
}]
}
};3. Automated Architecture Testing
Validate that vibe-coded solutions meet architectural requirements:
# tests/architecture/test_layer_dependencies.py
import pytest
from pydepend import ModuleDependencyAnalyzer
def test_domain_has_no_infrastructure_dependencies():
"""Ensure vibe-coded domain logic doesn't violate clean architecture."""
analyzer = ModuleDependencyAnalyzer('src')
domain_deps = analyzer.get_dependencies('domain')
forbidden = ['infrastructure', 'presentation', 'database']
violations = [dep for dep in domain_deps if any(f in dep for f in forbidden)]
assert len(violations) == 0, f"Domain has forbidden dependencies: {violations}"
def test_services_follow_interface_segregation():
"""Ensure AI-generated services have focused interfaces."""
analyzer = InterfaceAnalyzer('src/application/services')
for service in analyzer.get_all_services():
methods = service.get_public_methods()
assert len(methods) <= 7, f"{service.name} has too many methods ({len(methods)})"4. Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) from Prototypes
Generate documentation automatically from vibe coding experiments:
#!/bin/bash
# generate-adr.sh - Create ADR from prototype
PROTOTYPE_DIR=$1
DECISION_NUM=$2
cat > "docs/adr/${DECISION_NUM}-${PROTOTYPE_DIR}.md" << EOF
# ADR ${DECISION_NUM}: ${PROTOTYPE_DIR} Architecture
## Status
Proposed
## Context
$(cat ${PROTOTYPE_DIR}/CONTEXT.md)
## Decision
$(cat ${PROTOTYPE_DIR}/DECISION.md)
## Consequences
### Positive
$(python analyze_prototype.py ${PROTOTYPE_DIR} --show-benefits)
### Negative
$(python analyze_prototype.py ${PROTOTYPE_DIR} --show-drawbacks)
## Implementation Evidence
See prototype in \`${PROTOTYPE_DIR}/\`
### Performance Characteristics
$(python benchmark_prototype.py ${PROTOTYPE_DIR})
### Complexity Metrics
$(python measure_complexity.py ${PROTOTYPE_DIR})
EOFThe maturation of vibe coding requires a cultural shift in how architects work:
Challenge: Migrate monolithic e-commerce platform to modern architecture. Team debating microservices vs modular monolith.
Traditional Approach Estimate: 3 months of architecture planning, 12 months implementation.
Vibe Coding Approach:
Challenge: Design real-time analytics system for IoT data (100K events/sec).
Vibe Coding Process:
# Prototype 1: Kafka + ClickHouse
# AI-generated in 4 hours, tested same day
class KafkaClickHouseAnalytics:
async def ingest(self, events: List[Event]):
await self.kafka.produce(events)
# Consumer writes to ClickHouse
# Prototype 2: Redis Streams + TimescaleDB
# AI-generated in 3 hours, tested next day
class RedisTimescaleAnalytics:
async def ingest(self, events: List[Event]):
await self.redis.xadd(events)
# Consumer writes to TimescaleDB
# Benchmark both with realistic load
# Results: Redis Streams handled load better
# for their specific access patterns
# Decision made with evidence, not opinionsOutcome: Production system built on proven architecture, delivered 6 weeks early.
Challenge: Existing API gateway showing performance issues. Should we optimize it or replace it?
Vibe-Driven Analysis:
// Week 1: AI-assisted optimization attempts on existing system
// Week 2: Prototype replacement with different technologies
// - Kong
// - Envoy
// - Custom Nginx + Lua
// - AWS API Gateway
// Load test all options
// Results revealed: Problem wasn't gateway,
// it was downstream service patterns
// Actual solution: Implement caching at gateway level
// Time saved: Would have spent 3 months rebuilding gatewayThe Problem: Treating vibe-coded prototypes as production-ready.
The Solution:
# Always mark prototype code clearly
# src/prototypes/cqrs-experiment/README.md
"""
⚠️ PROTOTYPE CODE - NOT PRODUCTION READY
Purpose: Evaluate CQRS pattern for user domain
Status: Experiment - DO NOT deploy
Missing:
- Error handling
- Security considerations
- Observability
- Testing
- Documentation
To productionize:
1. Review with security team
2. Add comprehensive tests
3. Add logging and metrics
4. Performance optimization
5. Code review
"""The Problem: Accepting AI-suggested architectures without critical evaluation.
The Solution: Use vibe coding for exploration, not decision-making:
AI Role: Rapid implementation of architectural hypotheses
Human Role: Evaluation, trade-off analysis, decision-making
✅ "Implement three different caching strategies so I can compare them"
❌ "What caching strategy should I use?" [accepting answer blindly]The Problem: Vibe coding without guardrails leads to architectural chaos.
The Solution: Define architectural principles first:
# .architecture-constraints.yml
# AI tools must respect these constraints
principles:
- name: "Clean Architecture"
rule: "Domain layer has no external dependencies"
validation: "pytest tests/architecture/test_dependencies.py"
- name: "Database Independence"
rule: "Business logic must not reference database specifics"
validation: "grep -r 'sqlalchemy' src/domain/ && exit 1"
- name: "API Stability"
rule: "No breaking changes to public APIs without ADR"
validation: "python scripts/check_api_compatibility.py"How do you know if your vibe coding practice is mature?
Where is this heading?
1. AI Architectural Critics
# Future: AI that critiques architecture, not just generates it
from architecture_ai import ArchitecturalReviewer
reviewer = ArchitecturalReviewer()
review = await reviewer.analyze(
codebase="./src",
principles="./architecture-principles.yml",
patterns="./approved-patterns/"
)
print(review.violations)
# "Service UserService violates Single Responsibility Principle"
# "Component AuthModule has cyclic dependency with UserModule"
# "API endpoint POST /users missing rate limiting"2. Architecture as Tests
// Architecture expressed as executable specifications
describe('Payment Processing Architecture', () => {
it('should isolate payment gateway behind adapter', async () => {
const dependencies = await analyzeDependencies('src/payment');
expect(dependencies.external).toEqual(['./adapters/payment-gateway']);
});
it('should use saga pattern for distributed transactions', async () => {
const implementation = await analyzePattern('src/payment/checkout');
expect(implementation.pattern).toBe('saga');
expect(implementation.compensations).toBeDefined();
});
});3. Architectural Copilots
Developer: "I need to add payment processing"
AI Architect: "Based on your codebase architecture, I recommend:
1. Create PaymentService in src/application/services/
2. Implement PaymentGatewayAdapter in src/infrastructure/
3. Use saga pattern for checkout workflow
I can prototype three payment gateway integrations:
- Stripe
- PayPal
- Internal payment service
Which would you like me to implement first?"Embrace vibe coding as an architectural tool
Define architectural guardrails
Mentor teams on mature vibe coding
Create space for architectural exploration
Invest in tooling
Measure maturity
Practice architectural vibe coding
Respect architectural constraints
Document your learnings
Vibe coding is no longer about junior developers blindly accepting ChatGPT output. It has evolved into a mature practice that empowers architects to explore, validate, and implement solutions faster than ever before.
The key insight: Vibe coding isn’t a replacement for architectural thinking—it’s an amplifier. When combined with architectural experience, sound principles, and proper validation, vibe-driven development accelerates the path from hypothesis to production-ready solution.
The architects winning in this new era aren’t fighting vibe coding—they’re mastering it. They’re using AI to prototype faster, validate earlier, and make better decisions with actual evidence instead of assumptions.
The question isn’t whether vibe coding will become a standard architectural practice. It already has. The question is: Are you ready to grow your vibe coding practice from chaotic to mature?
Start small. Pick one architectural decision you’re facing. Spend two hours prototyping alternatives with AI assistance. Test them. Measure them. Document what you learn.
You might be surprised at how much faster you arrive at better decisions.
Because in the end, the best architecture isn’t the one you planned for months—it’s the one that actually works for your specific context. And vibe coding, done maturely, is one of the fastest ways to discover what that is.
AsyncSquad helps engineering teams adopt AI-driven development practices while maintaining architectural excellence. We provide training, tooling, and consulting to help your architects master mature vibe coding.
Ready to transform your architectural practice? Contact us to discuss how we can help your team adopt vibe-driven architecture at scale.
