When an AI-generated app becomes hard to maintain ("vibe coding debt"), the answer isn't manual fixes, but using the AI again. Users should explain the maintenance problems to the tool and prompt it to rethink the solution from a deeper level, effectively using AI to solve AI-created tech debt.

Related Insights

The trend of 'vibe coding'—casually using prompts to generate code without rigor—is creating low-quality, unmaintainable software. The AI engineering community has reached its limit with this approach and is actively searching for a new development paradigm that marries AI's speed with traditional engineering's craft and reliability.

AI development tools can be "resistant," ignoring change requests. A powerful technique is to prompt the AI to consider multiple options and ask for your choice before building. This prevents it from making incorrect unilateral decisions, such as applying a navigation change to the entire site by mistake.

When using AI development tools, first leverage their "planning" mode. The AI may correctly identify code to change but misinterpret the strategic goal. Correct the AI's plan (e.g., from a global change to a user-specific one) before implementation to avoid rework.

Before writing any code for a complex feature or bug fix, delegate the initial discovery phase to an AI. Task it with researching the current state of the codebase to understand existing logic and potential challenges. This front-loads research and leads to a more informed, efficient approach.

Instead of asking an AI to directly build something, the more effective approach is to instruct it on *how* to solve the problem: gather references, identify best-in-class libraries, and create a framework before implementation. This means working one level of abstraction higher than the code itself.

When an AI tool makes a mistake, treat it as a learning opportunity for the system. Ask the AI to reflect on why it failed, such as a flaw in its system prompt or tooling. Then, update the underlying documentation and prompts to prevent that specific class of error from happening again in the future.

Visual "vibe coding" platforms, intended to simplify development, can add unnecessary complexity and scope creep to simple projects. When this happens, it's cheap and effective to abandon the tool and start from scratch in a code editor like Cursor to maintain simplicity.

AI coding tools dramatically accelerate development, but this speed amplifies technical debt creation exponentially. A small team can now generate a massive, fragile codebase with inconsistent patterns and sparse documentation, creating maintenance burdens previously seen only in large, legacy organizations.

As AI rapidly generates code, the challenge shifts from writing code to comprehending and maintaining it. New tools like Google's Code Wiki are emerging to address this "understanding gap," providing continuously updated documentation to keep pace with AI-generated software and prevent unmanageable complexity.

Instead of fighting for perfect code upfront, accept that AI assistants can generate verbose code. Build a dedicated "refactoring" phase into your process, using AI with specific rules to clean up and restructure the initial output. This allows you to actively manage technical debt created by AI-powered speed.