674 lines
27 KiB
Markdown
674 lines
27 KiB
Markdown
# Activity Log
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-22 @strategist — Session 1
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Initial setup
|
||
|
||
**Changes:**
|
||
- Created article card in `0-inbox/beyond-vibe-coding.md`
|
||
- Created assets folder structure
|
||
- Copied Perplexity research
|
||
- Created research-index.md for clustering
|
||
|
||
**Notes:**
|
||
- Goal: Henry's 2nd Dev.to article for account warmup
|
||
- Approach: methodology survey + practitioner opinion via interview
|
||
- Interview planned to capture authentic perspective
|
||
|
||
**Next:** Verify sources, cluster methodologies, conduct interview
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## @writer. 24 Jan 2026. 10:15
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Draft creation
|
||
|
||
**Changes:**
|
||
- Created `text.md` — complete article draft
|
||
- Moved article from `2-outline/` to `3-drafting/`
|
||
- Updated main file status to `drafting`
|
||
|
||
**Draft details:**
|
||
- Word count: ~2,650 words
|
||
- Code snippets: NONE (per user request)
|
||
- Image placeholders: 8 total
|
||
|
||
**Image placeholders added:**
|
||
1. `hero-spectrum.png` — Infographic: methodology spectrum from vibe to professional
|
||
2. `meme-vibe-coder.png` — Meme: developer with "it works, I don't know why"
|
||
3. `infographic-spec-driven.png` — Comparison: vibe coding vs spec-driven flow
|
||
4. `illustration-agentic-spectrum.png` — Autonomy scale showing methodology positions
|
||
5. `meme-ralph-loop.png` — Meme: Ralph Loop "results may vary"
|
||
6. `illustration-pair-programming.png` — Autocomplete vs true pair programming
|
||
7. `infographic-hitl.png` — Timeline showing HITL checkpoint approach
|
||
8. `infographic-tdd-cycle.png` — TDD cycle with AI integration
|
||
9. `summary-landscape.png` — 2x2 matrix of all methodologies by autonomy/structure
|
||
|
||
**Voice notes:**
|
||
- Integrated all interview insights in Henry's voice
|
||
- Statistics woven naturally (76%, 2.5x difference, etc.)
|
||
- Honest skepticism about Ralph Loop preserved
|
||
- Direct, pragmatic tone throughout
|
||
- No corporate speak, no filler
|
||
|
||
**For @editor:**
|
||
- Check voice consistency with henry-technical style guide
|
||
- Verify image placeholder descriptions are actionable for @image
|
||
- Review transitions between sections
|
||
|
||
**For @image:**
|
||
- 9 images needed (hero + 8 in-article)
|
||
- Mix of: infographics (4), illustrations (2), memes (2), summary visual (1)
|
||
- Style notes included in each placeholder
|
||
|
||
**Next:** @editor review
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-22 @strategist — Session 2
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Keyword research & Brief creation
|
||
|
||
**Research completed:**
|
||
- DataForSEO keyword research: $0.40 spent
|
||
- 25+ keywords tested for volume and difficulty
|
||
- Related keywords analysis for top methodologies
|
||
- Search intent classification
|
||
|
||
**Key findings:**
|
||
- **spec driven development**: 1,300 vol (359x growth in 2025!)
|
||
- **ai pair programming**: 720 vol (KD 50)
|
||
- **human in the loop ai**: 880 vol (stable)
|
||
- **ralph loop**: 10 vol (but Dec spike to 140)
|
||
- **vibe coding**: 0 vol (despite Word of Year!)
|
||
- **agentic coding**: 0 vol
|
||
|
||
**Halo keywords (massive volume):**
|
||
- claude code: 165k
|
||
- cursor ai: 135k
|
||
- github copilot: 74k
|
||
|
||
**Strategic decision:**
|
||
Thought leadership piece, not pure SEO play. Primary keyword "ai coding methodologies" (0 vol) positions us as definitional content. Secondary keywords with volume provide long-tail ranking opportunities.
|
||
|
||
**Changes:**
|
||
- Created complete Brief with strategic context, keyword strategy, requirements
|
||
- Updated frontmatter with keywords
|
||
- Status changed to `planning`
|
||
|
||
**Interview data:**
|
||
Oleg's detailed interview from Session 1 provides authentic practitioner voice for Henry. Six methodologies covered with specific examples and honest trade-offs.
|
||
|
||
**Next:** @architect to create Outline based on Brief + interview insights
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-23 @strategist — Session 3
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Brief refinements based on user clarification
|
||
|
||
**Critical insights added:**
|
||
|
||
1. **Deeper reader motivation:**
|
||
- Not just "how to choose methodology"
|
||
- Fighting impostor syndrome: "Is AI coding unprofessional?"
|
||
- Seeking legitimacy: professional AI usage ≠ junior with ChatGPT
|
||
- Understanding that pro AI coding requires serious skills
|
||
- Permission to use AI tools without shame
|
||
|
||
2. **Methodology presentation structure:**
|
||
Each methodology must include credentials block:
|
||
- Name (official)
|
||
- Source links (repos, papers, docs)
|
||
- Created by (company/person/community)
|
||
- When (year introduced)
|
||
- Used by (notable adopters)
|
||
|
||
Purpose: Establish that these are serious professional approaches with foundation, not random hacks
|
||
|
||
3. **Title alternatives proposed:**
|
||
- "You Might Not Need Vibe Coding"
|
||
- "What Comes After Vibe Coding"
|
||
- "AI Coding vs Vibe Coding"
|
||
- "AI Coding for Professionals"
|
||
- "~~Vibe Coding~~ AI Coding for Software Engineers"
|
||
|
||
Added to Brief for @architect consideration
|
||
|
||
**Changes to Brief:**
|
||
- Enhanced Strategic Context: explicit "fight stigma" positioning
|
||
- Expanded Target Reader: added impostor syndrome, validation seeking
|
||
- Requirements: detailed credentials structure for each methodology
|
||
- Special Notes: emphasized credentials as critical for legitimacy
|
||
- Added Title Alternatives section
|
||
|
||
**Key message reinforced:**
|
||
This article is not just a survey — it's a validation piece. Reader needs permission to use AI professionally and proof that methodology separates pros from juniors.
|
||
|
||
**Brief status:** Complete and ready for @architect
|
||
|
||
**Next:** Move to 1-planning/, @architect creates Outline
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-23 @strategist — Session 4 (Final)
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Statistical research & file restructuring
|
||
|
||
**Statistical Research Completed:**
|
||
- Brave Search: 30+ sources on AI adoption, security, company policies
|
||
- Created comprehensive `ai-usage-statistics.md` with 35+ verified sources
|
||
|
||
**Key statistics collected:**
|
||
- **76% of developers** using or planning to use AI (Stack Overflow 2024)
|
||
- **33% of senior developers** (10+ years) generate 50%+ of code with AI
|
||
- **13% of junior developers** (0-2 years) do the same — **2.5x difference**
|
||
- **90% of Fortune 100** companies adopted GitHub Copilot
|
||
- **27-32% of companies** banned AI tools over security/privacy
|
||
- **45-73% of AI-generated code** contains security vulnerabilities
|
||
|
||
**Why these stats matter:**
|
||
Reinforces article thesis with hard data:
|
||
1. Professionals use AI MORE (contradicts "toy for juniors" stigma)
|
||
2. Enterprise validation (Fortune 100 adoption)
|
||
3. Security risks exist (need for methodology)
|
||
4. Skill matters (same tools, different outcomes)
|
||
|
||
**File Restructuring:**
|
||
- Moved Brief from main article to `brief.md` (cleaner structure)
|
||
- Updated Assets Index with new files
|
||
- Added references in Brief to use statistical data
|
||
|
||
**Files Added:**
|
||
1. `assets/beyond-vibe-coding/brief.md` — complete strategic documentation
|
||
2. `assets/beyond-vibe-coding/ai-usage-statistics.md` — statistical backing
|
||
|
||
**Current structure:**
|
||
```
|
||
0-inbox/beyond-vibe-coding.md (main card + references)
|
||
├── assets/beyond-vibe-coding/
|
||
├── brief.md (strategic context, requirements)
|
||
├── ai-usage-statistics.md (data backing)
|
||
├── interview.md (practitioner insights)
|
||
├── research-index.md (source verification)
|
||
└── log-chat.md (this file)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Brief Status:** Complete with statistical backing ready
|
||
|
||
**Next:** Move entire card to 1-planning/, @architect creates Outline using:
|
||
- Brief requirements
|
||
- Interview insights
|
||
- Statistical evidence from ai-usage-statistics.md
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-23 @architect
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Outline creation
|
||
|
||
**Changes:**
|
||
- Created `outline.md` with complete article structure
|
||
- 7 sections: Intro + 6 methodologies + Decision Framework + Conclusion
|
||
- Each methodology includes required credentials block
|
||
- Integrated Henry's voice from interview insights
|
||
- Added code examples (3 total): CLAUDE.md spec, .claude/settings.json, TDD test
|
||
- Mapped visual assets needed
|
||
- Created minimal Validation Request (7 claims)
|
||
|
||
**Structure details:**
|
||
- Total target: 2,800 words (~11 min read)
|
||
- Intro (400w) — hook with vibe coding, establish problem
|
||
- Vibe Coding (400w) — baseline, when it works, the catch
|
||
- Spec-Driven (450w) — detailed with code example, Henry's experience
|
||
- Agentic + Ralph Loop (500w) — high autonomy, permissions reality
|
||
- AI Pair Programming (400w) — Henry's honest take on autocomplete
|
||
- HITL (400w) — planning mode, strategic oversight
|
||
- TDD + AI (450w) — quality-first, tests as spec
|
||
- Decision Framework (350w) — stakes-based selection
|
||
- Conclusion (300w) — legitimacy validation, next step
|
||
|
||
**Key decisions:**
|
||
- Lead with vibe coding (Collins Word of Year) as hook
|
||
- Credentials blocks establish each methodology as legitimate
|
||
- Henry's skepticism about Ralph Loop = honest, not promotional
|
||
- Stats integrated naturally (33% vs 13%, 76% adoption)
|
||
- Code examples: practical, brief, illustrative
|
||
- Decision framework based on stakes, not dogma
|
||
|
||
**Validation Request:**
|
||
7 claims need verification:
|
||
1. Senior 33% vs junior 13% stat (Fastly Study)
|
||
2. 76% adoption (Stack Overflow)
|
||
3. 45-62% security vulnerabilities (Georgetown CSET, Veracode)
|
||
4. 90% Fortune 100 (GitHub Copilot stats)
|
||
5. 27% company bans (Cisco study)
|
||
6. 359x growth for SDD (source unclear, needs verification)
|
||
7. Ralph Loop viral Jan 2026 (VentureBeat article)
|
||
|
||
Most stats already sourced in ai-usage-statistics.md, just need URL verification.
|
||
|
||
**For next agent:**
|
||
@validator should verify statistical claims and credentials URLs. Interview material (Henry's opinions) doesn't need verification — it's primary source (Oleg's experience).
|
||
|
||
After PASS from @validator → @writer creates Draft using this structure + interview insights.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## @architect. 23 Jan 2026. 19:45
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Tone and structure correction
|
||
|
||
**Discussion with Oleg:**
|
||
Identified that "Decision Framework" section was too prescriptive — sounded like "how to choose a framework" guide rather than practitioner survey. Article should be "here's what exists and here's what I actually do", not instructions.
|
||
|
||
**Changes:**
|
||
- Removed "Decision Framework" section (350w)
|
||
- Expanded Conclusion to 450w with four subsections:
|
||
- The Landscape Exists (120w) — survey what's available, note evolution
|
||
- The Legitimacy Question (120w) — stats reinforcing professional AI usage
|
||
- What Makes It Professional (100w) — approach matters, not tool
|
||
- What I Actually Use (110w) — personal experience, invitation to share
|
||
- Changed ending CTA: "developers" → "engineers", "genuinely curious" → "share your wins"
|
||
- Updated tone in Article Structure Overview to clarify: "landscape survey through practitioner's lens, not prescriptive guide"
|
||
|
||
**Why this matters:**
|
||
Original structure positioned Henry as instructor teaching "correct" choices. New structure positions Henry as practitioner sharing observations and experience. Big difference in authority positioning — survey + perspective vs. instruction manual.
|
||
|
||
**Tone now:**
|
||
- AI coding = serious professional tools
|
||
- Vibe coding = entry point, not destination
|
||
- Progression available (vibe → professional approaches)
|
||
- Legitimacy reinforced with stats
|
||
- Ending invites community sharing, not just "go do this"
|
||
|
||
**Ready for:**
|
||
@validator — verify 7 statistical claims and credentials URLs
|
||
|
||
After validation PASS → @writer creates Draft using corrected structure
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## @validator. 23 Jan 2026. 21:00
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Fact-checking validation
|
||
|
||
**Results:**
|
||
- ✅ **4 claims fully verified:** Senior/junior AI usage (32-33%), 76% adoption, 27% bans, Ralph Loop virality
|
||
- ⚠️ **2 claims need clarification:** Security vulnerabilities range (45-62%), GitHub Copilot adoption (90%)
|
||
- ❌ **1 claim false:** Spec-Driven Development "359x growth" — no evidence found
|
||
|
||
**User decisions:**
|
||
1. **Claim 1 (33% seniors):**
|
||
- Minor discrepancy: source says "32%" or "about a third", not "33%"
|
||
- Decision: Note discrepancy but not critical
|
||
|
||
2. **Claim 2 (76% adoption):**
|
||
- Decision: Keep as-is (verified)
|
||
|
||
3. **Claim 3 (45-62% vulnerabilities):**
|
||
- Decision: Update format with citations [1][2][3]
|
||
- Add Georgetown CSET, Veracode, industry reports
|
||
|
||
4. **Claim 4 (90% Fortune 100):**
|
||
- Decision: REMOVE entirely
|
||
- Reason: "нам это не принципиально" (not critical)
|
||
|
||
5. **Claim 5 (27% bans):**
|
||
- Decision: Keep as-is (verified)
|
||
|
||
6. **Claim 6 (359x growth):**
|
||
- Decision: REMOVE entirely
|
||
- Reason: "нам это не принципиально" (not critical, no evidence)
|
||
|
||
7. **Claim 7 (Ralph Loop viral):**
|
||
- Decision: Keep as-is (verified)
|
||
|
||
**Summary:**
|
||
- ✅ **3 claims use as-is:** #2, #5, #7
|
||
- ✅ **1 claim update format:** #3 (add citations)
|
||
- ⚠️ **1 claim optional fix:** #1 (minor discrepancy)
|
||
- ❌ **2 claims remove:** #4, #6
|
||
|
||
**For @architect:**
|
||
1. Remove Claims 4 and 6 from outline
|
||
2. Update Claim 3 with proper citation format
|
||
3. Optionally note Claim 1 discrepancy
|
||
4. Then proceed to @writer
|
||
|
||
**Files updated:**
|
||
- validation-results.md — complete with final decisions
|
||
- log-chat.md — this entry
|
||
|
||
**Next:** @architect revises outline per user instructions
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## @architect. 23 Jan 2026. 21:30
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Outline revisions based on validation results
|
||
|
||
**Changes made:**
|
||
|
||
1. **Removed Claim 4 (90% Fortune 100):**
|
||
- Deleted from Conclusion → The Legitimacy Question
|
||
- Replaced with general statement: "Major companies have adopted AI coding tools across their engineering organizations"
|
||
|
||
2. **Removed Claim 6 (359x growth):**
|
||
- Deleted from Spec-Driven Development credentials block
|
||
- Replaced with qualitative description: "emerged as one of 2025's key AI-assisted engineering practices (Thoughtworks)"
|
||
- Added: "Multiple professional tools launched: AWS Kiro, GitHub Spec Kit, Tessl Framework"
|
||
|
||
3. **Updated Claim 3 (security vulnerabilities):**
|
||
- Changed from: "45-62% of AI code contains vulnerabilities (Georgetown CSET, Veracode)"
|
||
- Changed to: "Research shows 45-62% of AI-generated code contains security vulnerabilities [1][2][3]"
|
||
- Added Sources section:
|
||
- [1] Georgetown CSET: "Cybersecurity Risks of AI-Generated Code" (Nov 2024)
|
||
- [2] Veracode: "AI-Generated Code: A Double-Edged Sword" (Sept 2025)
|
||
- [3] Industry reports (Oct 2025)
|
||
|
||
4. **Updated Claim 1 (33% → about a third):**
|
||
- Introduction → The Reality: "33% of senior devs" → "About a third of senior devs"
|
||
- Conclusion → The Legitimacy Question: "33% of senior developers" → "About a third of senior developers"
|
||
|
||
**Files updated:**
|
||
- `outline.md` — all revisions applied
|
||
- `2-outline/beyond-vibe-coding.md` — updated Validation Status to "REVISE → COMPLETE ✅"
|
||
- `log-chat.md` — this entry
|
||
|
||
**Validation complete:** All false claims removed, citations added, stats corrected
|
||
|
||
**Status:** Outline ready for @writer
|
||
|
||
**Next:** @writer creates Draft based on revised outline + interview insights
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-31 @user
|
||
|
||
я добавил файл со статистикой по применению AI в коде. позже нам нужно будет использовать его для создания инфорграфики. В текст статьи я вставил TODOs с детальным описанием.
|
||
Файл называется [ai-adoption-statistics](ai-adoption-statistics.md)
|
||
Первый агент, который увидит это сообщение должен учесть этот файл в нашем фреймворке и добавить референсы на него куда нужно.
|
||
Когда дойдем до генерации изображений @image-agent - тебе нужно будет найти соответствующие TODO и создать инфографику основываясь на данных из этого файла.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-31 @seo — SEO Strategy & Series Planning
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Keyword research + series structure decision
|
||
|
||
**Research completed:**
|
||
- DataForSEO keyword research: ~$0.30 spent
|
||
- 40+ keywords tested for volume and difficulty
|
||
- Competitor analysis (dev.to articles about vibe coding anniversary)
|
||
|
||
**Key findings:**
|
||
|
||
| Keyword | Volume | Comp | Notes |
|
||
|---------|--------|------|-------|
|
||
| vibe coding | 90,500 | MED | Primary umbrella |
|
||
| what is vibe coding | 40,500 | LOW | 🔥 Great ratio! |
|
||
| vibe coding meaning | 9,900 | LOW | Informational |
|
||
| vibecoding (слитно) | 2,900 | MED | Separate keyword! |
|
||
| spec driven development | 1,300 | LOW | 🚀 Explosive growth |
|
||
| how to vibe code | 1,000 | MED | Tutorial intent |
|
||
| human in the loop ai | 880 | LOW | Part 3 target |
|
||
| ai pair programming | 720 | LOW | Part 2 target |
|
||
| enterprise vibe coding | 30→110 | MED | 🚀 Growing! |
|
||
| vibe coding vs agentic coding | 50→90 | LOW | 🚀 Growing! |
|
||
| beyond vibe coding | 110 | MED | Series branding |
|
||
|
||
**Strategic decisions:**
|
||
|
||
1. **Split into 3 parts** — dev.to series "Beyond Vibe Coding"
|
||
- More "activity signals" for account warmup
|
||
- Each part targets different keywords
|
||
- 5 min read time optimal for dev.to engagement
|
||
|
||
2. **Titles:**
|
||
- Part 1: `What Is Vibe Coding in 2026? One Year From Karpathy's Tweet`
|
||
- Part 2: `AI Pair Programming vs Agentic Coding: Two Extremes of Vibe Coding`
|
||
- Part 3: TBD (human in the loop ai + enterprise angle)
|
||
|
||
3. **Publication timing:**
|
||
- Part 1: Monday Feb 2, 2026 (exact anniversary!)
|
||
- Parts 2-3: 4-5 days apart
|
||
|
||
4. **Anniversary hook:** Feb 2, 2026 = exactly 1 year from Karpathy's tweet
|
||
- News value for first-day engagement
|
||
- Potential for social amplification
|
||
|
||
**Competitor landscape:**
|
||
- "The Vibe Coding Hangover" already on dev.to (negative angle)
|
||
- Our differentiation: practical methods survey + honest experience (positive)
|
||
|
||
**Changes made:**
|
||
- Reformatted intro paragraph for SEO (first 100 words optimized)
|
||
- Added "what is vibe coding" question hook
|
||
|
||
**SEO notes for text optimization:**
|
||
|
||
**Part 1:**
|
||
- ✅ "spec-driven development" — вынести в первые 100 слов intro
|
||
- ✅ "how to vibe code" — вставить органично в раздел vibe coding, например: "So how to vibe code properly? First, understand when it works..."
|
||
- ✅ "vibecoding" (слитно) — упомянуть один раз в тексте для keyword coverage
|
||
|
||
**Part 2:**
|
||
- "vibe coding vs agentic coding" — сделать H2 или использовать в тексте
|
||
- "ai pair programming" — уже есть как название раздела
|
||
|
||
**Part 3:**
|
||
- "human in the loop ai" — уже есть как раздел
|
||
- "enterprise vibe coding" — добавить в контекст production/enterprise usage
|
||
|
||
**File structure decision:**
|
||
- Keep all files in current folder
|
||
- Split text into: text-p1.md, text-p2.md, text-p3.md
|
||
|
||
**For next agent:**
|
||
- @writer: split text.md into 3 parts per structure above
|
||
- Each part needs self-contained intro (brief context link to series)
|
||
- Part 1 intro already optimized for SEO
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-31 @seo — TDD Section Keyword Research
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Keyword research for TDD methodology naming
|
||
|
||
**Problem:** Official name "AI-aided test-first development" (Thoughtworks) has **zero** search volume. People don't search for it.
|
||
|
||
**Research completed:**
|
||
- DataForSEO keyword research: ~$0.15 spent
|
||
- Tested 30+ variations of TDD + AI naming
|
||
|
||
**Key findings:**
|
||
|
||
| Keyword | Volume | Comp | Notes |
|
||
|---------|--------|------|-------|
|
||
| tdd | 6,600 | LOW | 🔥 Parent keyword |
|
||
| test driven development | 3,600 | LOW | Core term, KD 41 |
|
||
| red green refactor | 260 | LOW | TDD cycle, Kent Beck |
|
||
| test driven development python | 210 | LOW | Language-specific |
|
||
| test first development | 70 | LOW | Synonym |
|
||
| tdd example | 70 | LOW | Tutorial intent |
|
||
| kent beck tdd | 50 | LOW | Authority signal |
|
||
| **test driven development with ai** | 40 | HIGH | 🎯 Exact match! |
|
||
| tdd vibe coding | 10 | MED | 🚀 Emerging! |
|
||
| vibe coding tdd | 10 | LOW | 🚀 Emerging! |
|
||
| ai-aided test-first development | 0 | — | ❌ Official but dead |
|
||
| ai-assisted tdd | 0 | — | ❌ |
|
||
| ai-enabled tdd | 0 | — | ❌ |
|
||
|
||
**Naming analysis:**
|
||
|
||
| Name | Source | Volume | Verdict |
|
||
|------|--------|--------|--------|
|
||
| AI-aided test-first development | Thoughtworks | 0 | ❌ SEO-dead |
|
||
| Test-Driven Development with AI | Builder.io | 40 | ✅ Best match |
|
||
| AI-assisted TDD | Industry | 0 | ❌ |
|
||
| TDD + AI | Shorthand | — | ✅ Leverages parent |
|
||
|
||
**Decision:**
|
||
|
||
**H2:** `TDD + AI: Quality-First Approach`
|
||
|
||
Rationale:
|
||
- "TDD" = 6,600 vol parent keyword (LOW competition)
|
||
- "+AI" gives context
|
||
- "Quality-First" contrasts with vibe coding
|
||
- Short, scannable
|
||
|
||
**First paragraph template:**
|
||
|
||
> Test-driven development (TDD) — the red-green-refactor cycle that Kent Beck popularized — becomes a superpower when combined with AI coding. Unlike vibe coding where you trust the output, TDD makes tests your communication protocol with AI. Test first development forces clear specification before implementation...
|
||
|
||
**Keywords covered in first 100 words:**
|
||
- ✅ test-driven development (3,600)
|
||
- ✅ TDD (6,600)
|
||
- ✅ red-green-refactor (260)
|
||
- ✅ Kent Beck (50)
|
||
- ✅ vibe coding (90,500) — contrast
|
||
- ✅ test first development (70)
|
||
|
||
**Note:** "Quality-First Approach" has only 10 vol, but all alternatives ("test first approach", "quality first development") are 0-10 vol too. Keep it — good messaging that contrasts with vibe coding.
|
||
|
||
**Emerging opportunity:**
|
||
"tdd vibe coding" and "vibe coding tdd" — 10 vol each but growing. People starting to search for TDD + vibe coding connection. Include both terms in text for future ranking.
|
||
|
||
**For @writer:**
|
||
- Update TDD section H2 to `TDD + AI: Quality-First Approach`
|
||
- Rewrite first paragraph using template above
|
||
- Mention "vibe coding tdd" contrast organically
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-01-31 @user - potential additions
|
||
|
||
**For @writer:**
|
||
|
||
1 Добавь еще TODO в индексный файл рассмотреть еще одну часть со следующими разделами:
|
||
|
||
- Architecture-First AI Development
|
||
- Prompt-Driven Development
|
||
- Copy-pasting from AI chatbot
|
||
|
||
2 Посмотри все md файлы в этой папке. Там добавились спеки по конкретным методологиям. добавь их в индекс и исопльзуй для расширения раздела credentials чтобы больше деталей дать. вставляй в текст статьи ссылки на пруфы и спеки компаний которые продвигают соотвествующие подходы.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-02-01 @writer
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Index updates per user request
|
||
|
||
**Changes made:**
|
||
|
||
1. **Updated main file** (`3-drafting/beyond-vibe-coding.md`):
|
||
- Restructured Assets Index with sections: Core Files, Methodology Specs, Statistics & Research, Images
|
||
- Added all 4 methodology spec files with key sources
|
||
- Added ai-adoption-statistics.md reference
|
||
- Added images folder reference with CDN URLs
|
||
- Added text-rus.md reference
|
||
- **Added TODO section for Part 4** (Architecture-First, Prompt-Driven, Copy-pasting)
|
||
|
||
2. **Updated research-index.md**:
|
||
- Added Source Files section with all spec file references
|
||
- Added statistics files references
|
||
- Added TODO section for Part 4 methodologies research
|
||
|
||
**Pending from log-chat:**
|
||
|
||
| Task | Status | Notes |
|
||
|------|--------|-------|
|
||
| Part 4 TODO | ✅ Done | Added to main file + research-index |
|
||
| Spec files in index | ✅ Done | All 4 specs referenced |
|
||
| Expand credentials in text.md | ⏳ Pending | Needs discussion — significant work |
|
||
| Insert images | ⏳ Waiting | User said "позже" |
|
||
|
||
**Question for @user:**
|
||
Расширение credentials в text.md ссылками из спек-файлов — это большая работа. Хочешь чтобы я сейчас это сделал, или сначала закончим с картинками и публикацией Part 1?
|
||
|
||
**Files updated:**
|
||
- `3-drafting/beyond-vibe-coding.md`
|
||
- `assets/beyond-vibe-coding/research-index.md`
|
||
- `assets/beyond-vibe-coding/log-chat.md` (this entry)
|
||
|
||
**Images status:**
|
||
8 comic images ready on CDN (see `images/comic/cdn-urls.md`). Waiting for user instructions on insertion.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-02-01 @writer — Article Split & SEO Optimization
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Split article into 3 parts, SEO optimization, credentials expansion
|
||
|
||
**Changes made:**
|
||
|
||
1. **Created 3 separate files:**
|
||
- `text-p1.md` — Intro + Vibe Coding + Spec-Driven Development (~1,400 words)
|
||
- `text-p2.md` — AI Pair Programming + Agentic Coding + Ralph Loop (~1,200 words)
|
||
- `text-p3.md` — Human-in-the-Loop + TDD + AI + Conclusion (~1,100 words)
|
||
|
||
2. **SEO optimizations (Part 1):**
|
||
- "vibe coding" in title and first sentence
|
||
- "what is vibe coding" question hook in first paragraph
|
||
- Series intro added at top
|
||
- Cross-links to other parts
|
||
|
||
3. **Expanded credentials from spec files:**
|
||
- Vibe Coding: Added Collins Dictionary, Wikipedia, arXiv reference
|
||
- Spec-Driven: Added Martin Fowler analysis, GitHub Blog official announcement, Tessl registry stats
|
||
- Agentic Coding: Added arXiv papers with details (13 observations + 99 surveys), Ralph Loop full timeline, VentureBeat interview, economics ($10.42/hr)
|
||
- AI Pair Programming: Added Microsoft Learn docs, Responsible AI practices, Cody by Sourcegraph, Claude Code positioning with output styles
|
||
- TDD + AI: Added Kent Beck podcast quote, DORA Report 2025, Google Cloud analysis, 8th Light "Missing Protocol" article
|
||
|
||
4. **Moved comics deeper into sections:**
|
||
- Before: Comics immediately under H2 headers
|
||
- After: Comics after relevant paragraphs in "Henry's thoughts"
|
||
- Example: "Karpathy tweet" comic now after "I use it often myself" paragraph
|
||
|
||
5. **Inserted user's comment:**
|
||
- `[правда я все же использую клавиатуру для этого]` → "though I still use my keyboard for this"
|
||
|
||
**Files created:**
|
||
- `assets/beyond-vibe-coding/text-p1.md`
|
||
- `assets/beyond-vibe-coding/text-p2.md`
|
||
- `assets/beyond-vibe-coding/text-p3.md`
|
||
|
||
**Pending:**
|
||
- HITL comic still TODO (not in CDN yet)
|
||
- text.md kept as reference (original monolithic version)
|
||
|
||
**Ready for publication:**
|
||
- ✅ Part 1: Ready for Feb 2, 2026 (tomorrow!)
|
||
- ✅ Part 2: Ready for Feb 6-7
|
||
- ✅ Part 3: Ready for Feb 11-12 (needs HITL comic)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2026-02-02 @user + @editor — Part 1 Published
|
||
|
||
**Action:** Publication + final human edits
|
||
|
||
**Published:**
|
||
- URL: https://dev.to/h1gbosn/what-is-vibe-coding-in-2026-one-year-from-karpathys-tweet-5f43
|
||
- Date: February 2, 2026 (exact 1-year anniversary of Karpathy's tweet)
|
||
|
||
**Human edits before/after publication:**
|
||
- Removed H1 title (dev.to handles separately)
|
||
- Removed "Part 1 of series" subtitle
|
||
- "started it all" → "started it" (more measured)
|
||
- Removed "(or 'vibecoding' as some write it)" — simplified
|
||
- "But be honest:" → "Let's be honest:" — softer invitation
|
||
- Changed intro ending from "my main approach for serious projects" to "then we will go through other approaches in follow up parts"
|
||
- Added new infographic: "Vibe Coding DO and DON'T"
|
||
|
||
**Voice concern raised:**
|
||
User concerned article became "more formal and robotic" after SEO optimization. Lost original direction: showing best practices beyond vibe coding + Henry's personal experience.
|
||
|
||
**@editor analysis:**
|
||
See discussion below in log.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|