``Vibe coding'' -- the practice of developing software through iteratively conversing with a large language model (LLM) -- has exploded in popularity within the last year. However, developers report key limitations including the accumulation of technical debt, security issues, and code churn to achieve satisfactory results. We argue that these pitfalls result from LLMs' inability to reconcile accumulating human-imposed constraints during vibe coding, with developers inadvertently failing to resolve contradictions because LLMs prioritize user commands over code consistency. Given LLMs' receptiveness to verification-based feedback, we argue that formal methods can mitigate these pitfalls, making vibe coding more reliable. However, we posit that integrating formal methods must transcend existing approaches that combine formal methods and LLMs. We advocate for a side-car system throughout the vibe coding process which: (1) \emph{Autoformalizes} specifications (2) Validates against targets, (3) Delivers \emph{actionable} feedback to the LLM, and (4) Allows intuitive developer influence on specifications.

Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models, have introduced new possibilities for software development practices. In our paper we investigate the emerging Vibe Coding (VC) paradigm that emphasizes intuitive, affect-driven, and improvisational interactions between developers and AI systems. Building upon the discourse of End-User Development (EUD), we explore how VC diverges from conventional programming approaches such as those supported by tools like GitHub Copilot. Through five semi-structured interview sessions with ten experienced software practitioners, we identify five thematic dimensions: creativity, sustainability, the future of programming, collaboration, and criticism. Our analysis conceptualizes VC within the metaphor of co-drifting, contrasting it with the prevalent co-piloting perspective of AI-assisted development. We argue that VC reconfigures the developers role, blurring boundaries between professional and non-developers. While VC enables novel forms of expression and rapid prototyping, it also introduces challenges regarding reproducibility, scalability, and inclusivity. We propose that VC represents a meaningful shift in programming culture, warranting further investigation within human-computer interaction (HCI) and software engineering research.

As developers increasingly lean on AI-generated code to build out their software--as they have with open source in the past--they risk introducing critical security failures along the way. Just like you probably don't grow and grind wheat to make flour for your bread, most software developers don't write every line of code in a new project from scratch. Doing so would be extremely slow and could create more security issues than it solves. So developers draw on existing libraries--often open source projects--to get various basic software components in place. While this approach is efficient, it can create exposure and lack of visibility into software.

Generative AI is reshaping UX design practices through "vibe coding," where UX professionals express intent in natural language and AI translates it into functional prototypes and code. Despite rapid adoption, little research has examined how vibe coding reconfigures UX workflows and collaboration. Drawing on interviews with 20 UX professionals across enterprises, startups, and academia, we show how vibe coding follows a four-stage workflow of ideation, AI generation, debugging, and review. This accelerates iteration, supports creativity, and lowers barriers to participation. However, professionals reported challenges of code unreliability, integration, and AI over-reliance. We find tensions between efficiency-driven prototyping ("intending the right design") and reflection ("designing the right intention"), introducing new asymmetries in trust, responsibility, and social stigma within teams. Through the lens of responsible human-AI collaboration for AI-assisted UX design and development, we contribute a deeper understanding of deskilling, ownership and disclosure, and creativity safeguarding in the age of vibe coding.

On a 5K screen in Kirkland, Washington, four terminals blur with activity as artificial intelligence generates thousands of lines of code. Steve Yegge, a veteran software engineer who previously worked at Google and AWS, sits back to watch. "This one is running some tests, that one is coming up with a plan. I am now coding on four different projects at once, although really I'm just burning tokens," Yegge says, referring to the cost of generating chunks of text with a large language model (LLM). Learning to code has long been seen as the ticket to a lucrative, secure career in tech.

This review presents a comprehensive analysis of two emerging paradigms in AI-assisted software development: vibe coding and agentic coding. While both leverage large language models (LLMs), they differ fundamentally in autonomy, architectural design, and the role of the developer. Vibe coding emphasizes intuitive, human-in-the-loop interaction through prompt-based, conversational workflows that support ideation, experimentation, and creative exploration. In contrast, agentic coding enables autonomous software development through goal-driven agents capable of planning, executing, testing, and iterating tasks with minimal human intervention. We propose a detailed taxonomy spanning conceptual foundations, execution models, feedback loops, safety mechanisms, debugging strategies, and real-world tool ecosystems. Through comparative workflow analysis and 20 detailed use cases, we illustrate how vibe systems thrive in early-stage prototyping and education, while agentic systems excel in enterprise-grade automation, codebase refactoring, and CI/CD integration. We further examine emerging trends in hybrid architectures, where natural language interfaces are coupled with autonomous execution pipelines. Finally, we articulate a future roadmap for agentic AI, outlining the infrastructure needed for trustworthy, explainable, and collaborative systems. Our findings suggest that successful AI software engineering will rely not on choosing one paradigm, but on harmonizing their strengths within a unified, human-centered development lifecycle.