QUICK INFO
| Difficulty | Beginner to Intermediate |
| Time Required | 45-60 minutes to read; 2-4 hours to complete first project |
| Prerequisites | Basic programming familiarity (any language), comfort with command line |
| Tools Needed | Code editor (VS Code or Cursor), AI assistant access (Claude, ChatGPT, or Copilot), Node.js or Python installed |
What You'll Learn:
- The vibe coding mindset and when it actually makes sense to use it
- A complete workflow for turning a vague idea into working code in one session
- How to prompt AI tools as collaborators rather than code generators
- When to vibe code and when to switch to traditional engineering
This tutorial teaches vibe coding from the ground up. It's for developers who are tired of over-planning projects that never ship, or anyone curious about the "just build it" approach that's taken over indie development Twitter. You'll need basic programming knowledge but not much else.
What Is Vibe Coding (And Why It Actually Works)
Vibe coding is building software by feel rather than specification. You start with a fuzzy idea, open your editor, and let the code emerge through rapid iteration. No PRD. No architecture diagram. No three-week sprint planning meeting.
The term started as a joke, more or less. Andrej Karpathy tweeted about it in February 2025, describing a workflow where you "fully give in to the vibes" and let AI handle the implementation details while you steer the direction. It resonated because a lot of developers were already doing this privately but felt guilty about it.
The guilt comes from traditional software engineering education, which emphasizes planning, documentation, and careful architecture. That approach exists for good reasons. It prevents disasters in systems that need to scale, stay maintained for years, or not kill anyone. But it's also wildly inappropriate for a lot of what developers actually build: prototypes, personal tools, side projects, MVPs to test market demand.
Vibe coding works because it exploits how creativity actually functions. When you're in flow state, your brain makes connections faster than your conscious mind can articulate them. You know what feels right before you can explain why. Traditional planning interrupts this by forcing you to justify decisions before you've explored the space enough to know what decisions matter.
There's also a practical angle. AI coding assistants have gotten good enough that implementation speed is no longer the bottleneck. I can describe a feature in plain English and have working code in seconds. The bottleneck shifted to knowing what to build and recognizing when it's working. Those are judgment calls, not technical challenges. Vibe coding prioritizes judgment over planning because that's where humans still beat the machines.
When Vibe Coding Makes Sense
Solo projects and small teams get the most benefit. When you're the only person who needs to understand the code, you can optimize for speed over communication. Prototypes and MVPs are obvious candidates since you're testing ideas, not building foundations. Creative tools, games, art projects, and anything where "interesting" matters more than "correct" fit the approach well.
I should clarify something here: vibe coding doesn't mean sloppy coding. The output can be clean and well-structured. The difference is that the structure emerges from iteration rather than upfront design. You refactor as you go, guided by what the code is telling you it wants to become. That sounds mystical but it's really just pattern recognition with fewer artificial constraints.
When It Doesn't
Anything involving other people's money, health, or safety. Anything you'll need to maintain for years. Anything where multiple developers need to work in the same codebase. I'll cover this more in the comparison section at the end, but the short version is: vibe coding is a tool, not an identity. Use it when it fits.
From Idea to Prototype in One Evening: A Vibe Coding Workflow
This is the core of vibe coding in practice. I'm going to walk through the actual process I use, but keep in mind this is descriptive, not prescriptive. The whole point is to find your own rhythm.
Start with a Sentence, Not a Spec
Write down what you want to build in one sentence. Not a feature list. Not user stories. One sentence describing what the thing does and maybe who it's for.
Examples that work: "A browser extension that dims everything except the paragraph I'm reading." "A CLI tool that renames files based on their contents." "A page where I can paste a meeting transcript and get back action items."
Examples that don't work: "A comprehensive productivity platform with task management, calendar integration, and team collaboration features." That's not an idea; that's a product category. You can't vibe code your way to Notion.
If you can't get it to one sentence, the idea is too big. Split it up or pick the most interesting piece and ignore the rest. You can always build more later. In my experience, the one-sentence constraint does more to clarify thinking than any amount of planning.
Set Up a Minimal Environment
Open your editor. Create a new folder. Initialize whatever framework gets you to "hello world" fastest. For web stuff, I usually reach for Next.js or just a plain HTML file depending on complexity. For utilities, Python or Node.
The goal is zero friction between having an idea and seeing it on screen. If your setup process takes more than two minutes, you'll lose momentum. If you're spending time configuring linters and formatters at this stage, you've already left vibe territory.
I keep template folders for my most common starting points. Just copy, rename, and go.
Build the Dumbest Version First
Your first implementation should be embarrassingly simple. Hardcode things that should be dynamic. Skip edge cases. Ignore error handling. Make it work for exactly one input in exactly one scenario.
This isn't laziness; it's information gathering. The dumb version teaches you things the smart version would have obscured. You discover which parts are actually hard, which assumptions were wrong, and what the real shape of the problem is.
Say you're building that meeting transcript tool. The dumb version is: paste transcript into a textarea, send it to Claude's API with "extract action items from this," display the response. That's maybe 30 lines of code. You can have it running in 15 minutes.
And now you know things. You know whether the AI actually extracts action items well. You know if the response format is usable. You know if the whole concept even makes sense once you see it working. That's worth more than any amount of upfront design.
Iterate by Feel
Here's where the "vibe" really kicks in. You have something working. What bothers you about it? What feels clunky? What would make it 10% better right now?
Don't make a list. Don't prioritize. Just fix the thing that's bothering you most. Then fix the next thing. Then the next.
This sounds chaotic but it creates a surprisingly coherent result. Your taste acts as an implicit specification. Each fix makes the overall thing more like what you actually want, even if you couldn't have described that in advance.
The key is staying in motion. If you get stuck on something for more than 10-15 minutes, skip it and fix something else. The stuck thing often becomes easier after you've changed other parts of the code. Or you realize it doesn't matter and stop caring.
I sometimes set a timer. Not for productivity reasons but because time pressure short-circuits overthinking. If I have to ship something in two hours, I can't afford to debate architecture. I just build.
Know When to Stop
This is harder than it sounds. Vibe coding has a natural tendency to expand because there's always one more thing that would be better. The antidote is having a definition of done that's based on function, not features.
For prototypes, "done" usually means: it demonstrates the core concept well enough to get feedback. For tools, "done" means: it solves the problem you opened the editor to solve. For MVPs, "done" means: someone could pay for this without feeling scammed.
I tend to stop when the thing starts feeling complete rather than obviously broken. That's vague but you'll recognize it. The urgency to fix things fades. You start thinking about polish instead of function. That's your cue to ship, share, or move on.
Tools That Amplify Vibe Coding
The right tools remove friction without adding decisions. I'll cover what I actually use, but this isn't comprehensive since I haven't deeply tested everything and preferences here are genuinely personal.
Editors
Cursor is built around AI-assisted coding and feels purpose-made for vibe coding. The Composer feature lets you describe changes in natural language and apply them across files. Cmd+K inline editing handles quick fixes without breaking flow. It's based on VS Code so the transition is easy if that's what you're used to. Around $20/month for the Pro plan, which you'll want for the better models. The free tier is limited but usable for trying it out.
VS Code with GitHub Copilot is the other main option. Copilot is better at autocomplete-style suggestions than Cursor in my experience, but worse at larger changes. It's also less integrated since you're bolting AI onto an existing editor rather than building around it. Still, if you're already in VS Code and don't want to switch, Copilot gets the job done.
I use Cursor for new projects and VS Code for existing codebases where I already have the setup dialed in. There's also Windsurf and a few others I haven't spent enough time with to have real opinions on.
AI Assistants
For vibe coding, you want an AI that handles ambiguity well and writes code that actually runs. Claude (Sonnet or Opus) is my default for anything substantial. It reasons through problems and tends to produce coherent architecture even without explicit guidance. ChatGPT with GPT-4 is better at some specific tasks but gives me more code that needs debugging. Copilot inside the editor handles the small stuff.
The model matters less than how you use it, which I'll cover in the next section.
Frameworks
Whatever gets you to "something on screen" fastest. For web UIs, Next.js or plain React if you know them, otherwise whatever you already know. For backends, Express if you want JavaScript everywhere, FastAPI if you prefer Python. For CLIs, Commander (Node) or Click (Python) are both fine.
The worst choice is learning a new framework mid-vibe. If you don't already know something appropriate, use the most minimal option available. A static HTML file with vanilla JavaScript is a legitimate choice for a lot of prototypes. Add complexity only when you actually need it.
How to Use AI as a Vibe Coding Copilot
This section could honestly be its own guide, but I'll cover the essentials.
Talk to It Like a Collaborator, Not a Vending Machine
The bad pattern is treating AI like a code generator: you describe exactly what you want, it produces code, you paste it in. This works for isolated functions but falls apart for anything with context.
The better pattern is treating AI like a junior developer who's sitting next to you. You explain what you're trying to do and why. You show it the relevant code. You iterate on suggestions together. You ask it questions when you're stuck, not just when you need code written.
Concretely, this means prompts like: "I'm building a tool that extracts action items from meeting transcripts. Here's my current code [paste]. The problem is that the AI keeps including discussion points that aren't actually action items. What approaches could help filter these better?"
That prompt gives context (what you're building), state (current code), problem (specific failure mode), and asks for approaches rather than code. The AI can engage with the actual challenge instead of guessing what you want.
The Iteration Loop
My typical flow looks like:
Write a rough prompt describing what I want. Get code back. Run it. It usually doesn't work or works wrong. Instead of writing a new prompt from scratch, I reply with what happened: "This throws an error on line 23 because X isn't defined when Y happens" or "This works but the output format is wrong, I need Z instead."
Three or four rounds of this usually gets me to something usable. Faster than trying to write a perfect prompt upfront, and the AI accumulates context about what I'm actually trying to do.
When to Reset
Sometimes a conversation goes off the rails. The AI latches onto a wrong approach or gets confused by accumulated context. Signs this is happening: suggestions get increasingly complex, the same errors keep recurring, or the AI starts contradicting its earlier responses.
When this happens, start a new conversation. Paste in your current code (the actual working version, not the broken experiments), describe where you are and what you're trying to do next, and go from there. Fresh context often unsticks things that felt impossible five messages ago.
Keep Your Own Judgment Active
The most important vibe coding skill is recognizing when AI suggestions are wrong or overcomplicated. AI assistants have a tendency toward verbose solutions. They'll add error handling you don't need, abstractions that won't pay off, and complexity that obscures what's actually happening.
For vibe coding, you want the simplest thing that works. Read AI suggestions critically. If something feels more complicated than necessary, it probably is. Ask the AI to simplify, or just write the simpler version yourself.
I catch myself accepting AI code without reading it sometimes, especially when I'm in flow. This almost always creates problems later. Take the ten seconds to understand what's being added.
Vibe Coding vs Traditional Engineering: When to Use Each
I promised a comparison, and this is where a lot of guides would put a table. I'm not going to do that because the distinction is more nuanced than columns allow.
Vibe coding optimizes for speed-to-insight. You're trying to learn something, explore a space, or test an idea. The code is a means to an end, not a product. If it turns out the idea is bad, you've lost a few hours instead of a few weeks. If it turns out the idea is good, you have a working prototype to build on or throw away.
Traditional engineering optimizes for longevity and collaboration. You're building something that needs to work reliably for years, survive changes in team composition, and scale past its initial design. The upfront investment in planning and architecture pays off over time as maintenance and modification get easier.
The failure modes are opposite. Vibe coding fails when you ship something that should have been more robust, or when you build six prototypes instead of finishing one real product. Traditional engineering fails when you spend months planning something nobody wants, or when process overhead prevents you from responding to what you're learning.
Most developers I know implicitly switch between modes based on context, but feel conflicted about it. Vibe coding feels like cheating when you've been taught that engineering rigor is the mark of professionalism. Traditional planning feels like procrastination when you just want to build something.
My suggestion: be explicit about which mode you're in. Tell yourself "this is a vibe coding session, I'm optimizing for speed" or "this needs to be production-grade, I'm going to slow down and do it right." The conflict comes from applying the standards of one mode to work done in the other.
Transitioning Between Modes
What happens when a prototype needs to become a real product? This is where vibe coding gets a bad reputation, because the naive approach is to just keep building on spaghetti.
The better approach is strategic rewriting. Once you know what you're building (because the prototype taught you), start fresh with proper architecture. You're not throwing away work; you're throwing away exploration. The knowledge you gained by vibe coding makes the traditional engineering phase faster and more accurate.
I'd estimate maybe 30% of my vibe-coded projects become something worth maintaining. For those, I'll spend a few days rebuilding with tests, documentation, and proper structure. The other 70% either fail, become one-off tools, or teach me something and get archived. That ratio would look terrible if you valued code as output. It looks great if you value learning and shipped products as output.
Alright, one more thing on this topic. Some people will tell you that AI coding assistants mean you should vibe code everything because rewriting is cheap. I haven't found this to be true for anything beyond simple projects. Complexity still compounds. Tech debt still accumulates. AI makes it faster to write code, but not faster to understand code, and understanding is what you need for maintenance.
Troubleshooting
Problem: You can't get into flow state, everything feels forced
This usually means the problem isn't clear enough. Go back to your one-sentence description. If you can't articulate what you're building, you can't build it by feel. Try writing three different one-sentence descriptions of the same idea and pick the one that sparks actual interest.
Sometimes it means you're tired or distracted. Vibe coding requires a particular kind of mental energy. If it's not there, either do something else or switch to a more mechanical task in the same project.
Problem: AI keeps giving you code that doesn't work
Check that you're providing enough context. The AI doesn't know things you haven't told it. Paste relevant code. Describe error messages exactly. Explain what you expected versus what happened.
If context isn't the issue, try a different model or start a fresh conversation. Models have different strengths, and sometimes a conversation has accumulated too much confused context to recover.
Problem: You built something but it feels like a mess
This is normal for vibe coding. The question is whether the mess is causing actual problems. If the code works and you don't need to extend it, the mess doesn't matter. If you're planning to build on it, take a session to refactor the worst parts before continuing.
A useful heuristic: if you can't explain how a piece of code works without reading it line by line, refactor that piece. If you can follow the logic at a function level, it's probably fine.
Problem: You keep starting projects and not finishing
Scope, almost certainly. The one-sentence test helps here. Another trick: commit to shipping something in one session, even if it's embarrassingly minimal. The act of finishing creates momentum that makes finishing the next thing easier.
What's Next
You've got the basics. The only way to really learn vibe coding is to try it on something you actually want to build. Pick an idea that's been bouncing around in your head, set aside an evening, and see what happens.
For specific tools, Cursor has decent documentation on their site at cursor.com/docs, and Claude's prompt engineering guide is worth reading if you want to get better at the AI collaboration part. Otherwise, the best resource is just building things and paying attention to what works for you.
PRO TIPS
Use your AI assistant's "continue" or "regenerate" feature liberally. First responses are often wrong; second or third attempts frequently nail it. The context from your feedback makes each attempt better.
Keyboard shortcuts matter more in vibe coding than regular development. Learn the ones for your editor's AI features (Cmd+K in Cursor for inline editing, Cmd+L for chat) until they're muscle memory. Any friction breaks flow.
Keep a scratchpad file in every project for notes-to-self, random ideas, and things to fix later. This lets you capture thoughts without interrupting what you're doing. I use a file called NOTES.md at the project root.
If you're stuck on implementation, describe the problem to the AI as if you're explaining it to a friend. Often the act of explaining surfaces what's actually wrong, even before you see the response.
FAQ
Q: Isn't vibe coding just "coding without thinking"?
A: It's coding without premature planning. You're thinking constantly, but about what's in front of you rather than hypothetical future states. The judgment calls are happening; they're just implicit in your taste rather than explicit in documents.
Q: How do I know if my vibe-coded project is "good enough" to show people?
A: If it demonstrates the core idea and doesn't crash on basic use, it's good enough. People evaluating prototypes care about the concept, not the implementation. Polish only matters if you're trying to collect payments.
Q: Can I vibe code in a language I don't know well?
A: Somewhat. AI assistants bridge the syntax gap, so you can get working code. But you'll miss bad suggestions because you lack the intuition to recognize them. I'd stick to languages where you have at least intermediate familiarity.
Q: What's the biggest risk of vibe coding?
A: Building something that works well enough to use but poorly enough to cause problems later. This happens when a prototype accidentally becomes production without anyone making that decision explicitly. Define upfront whether something is throwaway or needs to be built properly.
Q: How do experienced developers feel about vibe coding?
A: Mixed. Some see it as enabling rapid experimentation; others see it as abandoning hard-won engineering discipline. The reasonable middle position is that it's a valid approach for appropriate contexts, not a replacement for software engineering fundamentals.
RESOURCES
- Cursor Documentation: Setup guides and feature explanations for the editor
- Claude Prompt Engineering Guide: How to get better results from AI assistants
- Andrej Karpathy's original tweet: Where the term "vibe coding" gained traction
- The Mythical Man-Month: Classic text on why traditional engineering has the constraints it does, useful context for when to use them
PROMPT TEMPLATES
Starting a New Vibe Coding Session
I'm building [one-sentence description of what you're making].
I want to start with the simplest possible version that demonstrates the core concept. I'm using [language/framework].
What's the minimal code to get something working that I can iterate on?
Customize by: Replacing the bracketed sections with your actual project and stack.
Example output for "a CLI that summarizes any webpage": The AI typically provides a 20-40 line script using something like requests + BeautifulSoup + an API call, with basic argument parsing. Usually runs on first try with maybe one missing import to fix.
Debugging in Context
Here's my current code:
[paste code]
When I run it with [specific input], I get [specific error or wrong behavior].
I expected [what should have happened].
What's going wrong and how do I fix it?
Customize by: Being specific about the input and the expected vs actual behavior. Vague descriptions get vague fixes.
Refactoring After Vibe Coding
This code works but it's gotten messy. Here's what I have:
[paste code]
The main functionality is [describe what it does].
Can you refactor this to be cleaner while keeping the same behavior? Don't add features or error handling I didn't have before.
Customize by: Adding specific concerns if you have them ("the state management is confusing" or "there's too much duplication in these functions").
