I, like many, was swept up in the excitement of “vibe coding” – the promise of building functional applications with just an AI prompt. The idea was intoxicating: effortless creation, powered by artificial intelligence.
After six weeks of experimentation, I’d built four apps. The honest assessment? Three were largely unusable. The experience was a stark lesson in the realities behind the hype.
One project, a dashboard for monitoring my Docker Swarm setup, actually worked well. It took about a week to develop, and the process felt surprisingly smooth, a beacon of success amidst a sea of frustration.
My primary focus, however, was attempting to recreate OpenClaw, the viral AI agent that has captivated the industry. I wanted a secure, self-hosted version and a deeper understanding of agentic AI.
Weeks were spent iterating on “BenClaw,” using tools like Claude Code, Google’s Antigravity, and OpenAI’s Codex. I started by trying to adapt existing clones, then attempted to build from scratch, issuing broad instructions to the AI.
My initial approach was to give the AI significant freedom, outlining features in general terms and letting it fill in the details. This, I soon discovered, was a critical mistake.
Currently, my test bench holds three flawed prototypes: a chatbot that forgets conversations and constantly reports errors, a workflow helper I didn’t intend to create and can’t operate, and a collection of three unreliable agents built with smolagents.
The repeated failures forced a difficult question: was I actually making progress, or was I simply mesmerized by the spectacle of AI generating code, oblivious to the fact that I was going nowhere?
The core issue became clear: I hadn’t done the fundamental work of detailed planning. Seasoned developers always begin with a blueprint, defining features, functionality, and the overall purpose of the application.
While AI tools *could* handle this planning stage, handing over design decisions to them meant relinquishing control of the project’s vision. The AI would dictate the outcome, not me.
The result was “AgentLab,” a project named by Claude, whose purpose remains a mystery even to its creator. Asking Claude what it does would likely be the most informative approach.
This was a classic case of “garbage in, garbage out.” Powerful tools like Claude Code and Antigravity can perform incredible feats of coding, but they require clear, well-defined input. Vague prompts yielded predictably poor results.
This isn’t a call to abandon vibe coding. If you have a clear vision for an app, now is an excellent time to pursue it. The tools are available, and the potential is real.
However, don’t underestimate the effort required. Imagination, creativity, and diligent planning are essential, both before and after the AI begins generating code. True success demands more than just a clever prompt.
