The way I see AI coding-agents at the moment is they are interns. You wouldn't give an intern responsibility for the whole project. You need an experienced developer who COULD do the job with some help from interns, but now the AI can be the intern.
There's an old saying "Fire is a good servant, but bad master". I think same applies to AI. In "vibe-coding" AI is too much the master.
But it's the amount and location(?) of the vibes that matters.
If I want to say, create a Youtube RSS hydrator that uses DeArrow to de-clickbait all URLs before they hit my RSS reader.
Level 1 (max vibe) I can either just say that to an LLM hit "go" and hope for the best (maximum vibes on spec and code). Most likely gonna be shit. Might work too.
Level 2 (pair-vibing the spec) is me pair-vibing the spec with an LLM, web versions might work if they can access sites for specs (figuring out how to turn a youtube URL to an RSS feed and how the DeArrow API works)
After the spec is done, I can give it to an agent and go do something else. In most cases there's an MVP done when I come back, depending on how easy said thing is to test (RSS/Atom is a fickle spec and readers implement it in various ways) automatically.
Level 3 continues the pair-vibed spec with pair-coding. I give the agent tasks in small parts and follow along as it progresses, interrupting if it strays.
For most senior folks with experience in writing specs for non-seniors, Level 2 will produce good enough stuff for personal use. And because you offload the time consuming bits to an agent, you can do multiple projects in parallel.
Level 3 will definitely bring the best results, but you can only progress one task at a time.
There's an old saying "Fire is a good servant, but bad master". I think same applies to AI. In "vibe-coding" AI is too much the master.