It you're conscious of the guardrails you're putting in, are you really "vibe coding"? The whole idea behind "vibe" coding is that you don't pay close attention to what the LLM gives you, you just go along with the "vibe".
I've built a couple systems where most of the code was generated by LLM prompts, but I wouldn't describe what I did as "vibe coding". Instead I was reviewing judiciously and applying my software engineering experience to ensure that the codebase was evolvable and maintainable. Not everything required careful review because certain subsystems were low risk and tolerant of sloppiness, but knowing where to watch like a hawk or hand code something was part of what I did.
I question the extent to which effective guardrails can be put in place as a general case. My impression matches what I've seen from others, which is that LLMs make senior devs who know how to supervise them more powerful — but I'm less certain about junior devs.
I've built a couple systems where most of the code was generated by LLM prompts, but I wouldn't describe what I did as "vibe coding". Instead I was reviewing judiciously and applying my software engineering experience to ensure that the codebase was evolvable and maintainable. Not everything required careful review because certain subsystems were low risk and tolerant of sloppiness, but knowing where to watch like a hawk or hand code something was part of what I did.
I question the extent to which effective guardrails can be put in place as a general case. My impression matches what I've seen from others, which is that LLMs make senior devs who know how to supervise them more powerful — but I'm less certain about junior devs.