09/06/2026
Andrej Karpathy coined the term “vibe coding” in February 2025. Collins English Dictionary made it Word of the Year. By April 2026, three major AI platform security failures had occurred in a single week, OWASP had added a dedicated category to its Top 10 specifically calling out as a security risk pattern, and the term had completed its journey from marketing buzzword to systemic concern.
That trajectory matters for anyone evaluating how to build . The question is not whether LLM-assisted development has value. It clearly does: 92% of US developers now use AI coding tools daily, and the productivity gains at the prototype and MVP stage are real and well-documented. The question is what happens when the thing you are building is not a prototype. Specifically, what happens when it is an AI agent: an autonomous system with access to your data, your APIs, your business logic, and in many cases your customers. As explored in our post on building trust in AI systems, trust is not a feature you add after the fact. It is a property of how a system is designed from the start. That principle applies with particular force to agents built with vibe coding.
This post is an honest attempt to answer a question that most vendors have an interest in obscuring: when is LLM-assisted development genuinely sufficient for building AI agents, and when does it create risks that specialized engineering expertise is the only reliable way to manage?
Read more here:
Where does vibe coding work for AI agents, and where does it fail? An honest comparison with specialized engineering, with a decision framework.