Beyond the Vibes: Vibe Coding Changed Who Can Build, Not How Software Should Be Built

Source: Dev.to

In the last few years, vibe coding has taken center stage by changing who can build software, but not what it takes to build it well. It is a development style defined by natural language prompts, rapid iteration, and an emphasis on getting things working fast.

Powered by AI‑assisted tools and accessible platforms, vibe coding has genuinely democratized building. Startups, solo devs, and even non‑technical founders can now create prototypes in hours, not months. That’s worth celebrating.

But as the hype grows, an important distinction is getting lost in the noise.

We’re starting to confuse vibe coding with software engineering. While both involve code, they serve very different purposes and come with very different risks.

Where Vibe Coding Shines

Vibe coding works best when you’re:

• Testing an idea
• Prototyping fast
• Building internal tools
• Exploring creatively

It accelerates iteration and lowers the cost of experimentation. It’s a massive enabler for innovation, especially in early‑stage product work.

The market agrees. According to Roots Analysis, the global vibe coding market is expected to grow from $2.96 B in 2025 to $325 B by 2040 – a 36.79 % CAGR.

But the faster something grows, the more important it becomes to ask:

Is this still the right tool for the job?

The Foundations Vibe Coding Often Skips

What vibe coding often skips, and what experienced developers obsess over, are the foundations that keep systems standing:

• Clear, stable requirements
• Non‑functional constraints (scale, security, latency)
• Architectural boundaries
• Testing strategies
• Maintainability
• Long‑term risk

The Most Expensive Problems Don’t Show Up in Demos

In vibe coding, it’s easy to build something that feels finished, but ultimately collapses when it’s time to expose it to real users, real load, or when it’s time to scale. Projects may look great on the surface but require complete rewrites to support users, integrate with systems, or handle basic growth.

It’s not a failure of intent but a misunderstanding of complexity.

Traditional Engineering Brings Weight

Professional software development brings structure and, with it, intentional weight:

• It’s more expensive
• It takes longer
• It often requires external talent (agencies, architects, senior engineers)
• It can feel heavy for early‑stage work

When the goal is durability, this discipline delivers it. You’re building something to last—handling change, load, integration, regulation—things that don’t show up in a prototype demo. The common stumbling block remains cost and speed.

A New Middle Ground: Orchestrated Multi‑Agent Systems

We believe the next evolution isn’t about choosing between speed or structure, but about deliberately combining both.

Enter multi‑agent systems (MAS)—autonomous agents that specialize in different aspects of the software lifecycle (planning, architecture, coding, testing, optimization).

Without Orchestration, AI Just Scales Chaos

The breakthrough isn’t the agents themselves; it’s the orchestration layer.

• Sequenced collaboration across AI agents (e.g., planner → coder → reviewer → tester)
• Integrated workflows across tools, platforms, and services
• Parallel execution to reduce latency and speed up delivery
• Maintainability through modular agent updates without breaking the system
• Smarter fallback and reliability mechanisms (retries, circuit breakers, role reassignment)

In short: orchestration turns “vibe” into “system”.

We Use This Because We Want To Ship

At Brunelly, we didn’t adopt orchestration as a theory; we use it because we have to ship real systems. Our CTO refers to LLMs as “a slightly messier version of me.”

If you want to read more about Brunelly’s orchestration, check out our CTO’s Guy Powell’s Substack.

Or if you prefer to test it out for yourself, feel free—it’s live!

Three Phases of Modern Software Building

As we move into 2026, here’s the shift we see:

You Don’t Need Extremes. You Need Intent.

You don’t need to abandon vibe coding or overinvest in full‑stack teams before you’re ready.

If you’re trying to build something credible and scalable, and you’re looking for that elusive balance between speed and structure, multi‑agent orchestration may offer a smarter third path.

Final Thought: Speed Is Optional. Clarity Isn’t.

The real question isn’t whether vibe coding is “good” or “bad.”

The question is: What are you building, and what will it take to get there?

• If you’re testing the waters, move fast and explore.
• If you’re building the backbone of a product or company, slow down, think deeply, and choose the right system.

2026 will reward the teams who can do both intelligently.