4.6 KiB

Raw Blame History

slug

title

author

status

created

updated

content_type

primary_keyword

secondary_keywords

assets_folder

beyond-vibe-coding

Beyond Vibe Coding: Professional AI Development Methodologies

henry-technical

validation_complete

2026-01-22

2026-01-23

explainer

ai coding methodologies

spec driven development

ai pair programming

human in the loop ai

ralph loop

assets/beyond-vibe-coding/

Idea

Source: Perplexity research on AI-assisted development terminology (Jan 2026)

Concept: Overview article covering AI coding methodologies landscape. Position vibe coding (Collins Word of Year 2025) as entry point, then survey professional approaches: Spec-Driven Development, Agentic Coding, AI Pair Programming, HITL, TDD+AI.

Goal: Establish Henry's expertise in AI-assisted development. Second article for Dev.to account warmup.

Angle: Survey + practitioner perspective (via interview with Oleg)

Brief

See brief.md for complete strategic context, target reader analysis, content requirements, and success criteria.

Quick Summary:

Goal: Fight "AI is for juniors" stigma with data-backed professional methodologies survey
Angle: Seniors use AI MORE than juniors (33% vs 13%) — methodology separates pros from beginners
Format: Survey of 6 methodologies with credentials, practitioner insights, decision framework
Target: 2,500-3,500 words, thought leadership + long-tail SEO

Outline

See outline.md for complete article structure.

Tone: "Here's what exists and here's what I actually do" — landscape survey through practitioner's lens, not prescriptive guide

Structure:

Introduction (400w) — Hook with vibe coding, establish legitimacy question
6 Methodology sections (400-500w each) — Credentials block, description, Henry's experience (integrated naturally)
Conclusion (450w) — Landscape overview, legitimacy validation with stats, what I use, community invitation

Total: ~2,800 words Code examples: 3 (CLAUDE.md spec, .claude/settings.json, TDD test)

Validation Status

Validated: 2026-01-23 Validator: @validator Verdict: REVISE

See validation-results.md for complete validation report.

Summary:

✅ 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, must be removed

Action Required:

Remove or revise Claim 6 (359x growth)
Clarify Claims 3-4 with proper source attribution
Minor correction to Claim 1 (33% → "about a third" or "32%")

Next Step: Return to @architect for revision, then proceed to @writer

Assets Index

All working files for this article:

File	Purpose	Status
brief.md	Complete Brief: strategic context, target reader, requirements, success criteria	✅ Complete
outline.md	Article structure with word budgets	✅ Complete
ai-usage-statistics.md	Statistical research: AI adoption by seniority, company policies, security concerns	✅ Complete
interview.md	Oleg's practitioner insights — source for Henry's voice	✅ Complete
research-index.md	Methodology clusters, verified sources, interview questions	✅ Complete
validation-results.md	Fact-checking results for all statistical claims	✅ Complete
log-chat.md	Activity log and agent comments	⏳ Needs update
text.md	Article draft	⏳ Pending @writer
seo-metadata.md	SEO title, description, keywords	⏳ Pending @seo

External Research

File	Purpose
perplexity-chats/AI-Assisted Development_...	Original Perplexity research on terminology

Activity Log

See log-chat.md

Latest: @validator completed fact-checking (2026-01-23). Verdict: REVISE. One false claim (359x growth), two claims need clarification (security vulnerabilities, Copilot adoption). Ready for @architect revision.

4.6 KiB Raw Blame History