vibe coding과 ADHD: 생산성 올리고 사고 줄이는 운영법

Introduction

  • TL;DR: Vibe coding means letting an AI generate code without deeply caring about what it produced. That can feel frictionless—especially if you struggle with planning and organization—but it can also amplify risk unless you add structure.
  • In this post, vibe coding is treated as a prototype-first technique, and the goal is a production-safe operating model using gates, small diffs, and accountability.

Prerequisites

Definitions, scope, and one common misconception

  • Vibe coding (1 sentence): Telling an AI what you want and letting it generate the product, often without fully understanding the code.
  • Not the same as AI-assisted programming: If you review, test, and understand the output, many practitioners argue that is not vibe coding.
  • ADHD (1 sentence): A neurodevelopmental disorder with persistent patterns of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity affecting functioning.
  • Misconception: “AI always makes developers faster.” A randomized trial with experienced OSS devs found AI use took longer in that setting.

Why it matters: You can’t run safe operations if your team mixes “prototype vibes” with “production responsibility.”

Step-by-step operating model

Step 0: Enforce a two-lane workflow (Prototype vs Production)

  • Prototype lane: vibe coding allowed
  • Production lane: vibe coding disallowed unless the change is reviewed, tested, and owned by a human

Why it matters: Shipping prototypes to production is the shortest path to unmaintainable systems.

Step 1: Use a “Prompt Contract” (requirements as a template)

Include: goal, success criteria, constraints (security/cost/latency), non-goals, tests, and rollback.

Why it matters: Research shows AI assistance can increase insecure code and user overconfidence—explicit constraints help.

Step 2: Cap PR size (small diffs)

Set hard limits (lines/files/review time), split changes.

Why it matters: Big diffs make verification fail in practice.

Step 3: Make automated gates non-optional (local + CI)

  • pre-commit formatting/lint
  • CI: tests + SAST (Bandit/Semgrep etc.)

Why it matters: Human attention is not a security control.

Step 4: “AI review + human accountability”

AI can summarize and flag issues, but humans own approvals.

Why it matters: Production requires ownership—if you can’t explain it, you can’t operate it.

Verification (what to watch and what to run)

  • Commands:
1
2
3

pytest -q
python -m compileall .
bandit -r . -q
  • Watch points: auth/IAM changes, input validation, secrets, rollback plan.
  • Align with SSDF activities across SDLC.

Why it matters: “Works on my machine” is not a release criterion.

Troubleshooting (symptom → cause → fix)

  1. PRs keep ballooning → AI broad edits → enforce PR caps and split work.
  2. Security scans fail → insecure suggestions are common → tighten constraints + enforce CI gates.
  3. Team feels faster but ships slower → verification overhead underestimated → narrow AI usage to best-fit tasks and measure.

Why it matters: Repeatable playbooks beat heroic debugging.

Ops tips (ADHD-friendly scaffolding)

  • Externalize memory: templates, checklists, automation
  • Time/organization skills are core targets in CBT-ADHD, which maps well to engineering ops scaffolding.

Why it matters: Build systems that work even when focus doesn’t.

Conclusion

  • Use vibe coding for prototypes, not production.
  • Reduce mistakes with: two lanes, prompt contracts, small diffs, automated CI/security gates, and clear human ownership.
  • Measure reality—AI can slow teams down depending on context.

Summary

  • Separate prototype and production lanes.
  • Treat prompts as requirement contracts.
  • Keep diffs small and gates mandatory.
  • Keep accountability human and explicit.

#vibecoding #adhd #aicoding #securecoding #ssdf #cicd #devops #llm #sast #softwarequality

References

  • (VIBE CODING Slang Meaning, 2025-03-08)[https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/vibe-coding]
  • (Will the future of software development run on vibes?, 2025-03-06)[https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/6/vibe-coding/]
  • (Two publishers and three authors fail to understand what “vibe coding” means, 2025-05-01)[https://simonwillison.net/2025/May/1/not-vibe-coding/]
  • (Vibe coding MenuGen, 2026-02-04 (accessed))[https://karpathy.bearblog.dev/vibe-coding-menugen/]
  • (Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity, 2025-07-10)[https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/]
  • (Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity, 2025-07-12)[https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089]
  • (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), 2026-02-04 (accessed))[https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd]
  • (About ADHD, 2025-11-25)[https://www.cdc.gov/adhd/about/index.html]
  • (Symptoms of ADHD, 2024-05-16)[https://www.cdc.gov/adhd/signs-symptoms/index.html]
  • (Treatment and Management of ADHD in Adults, 2026-02-04 (accessed))[https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/patient-care/prevention-wellness/emotional-wellbeing/adhd-toolkit/treatment-and-management.html]
  • (The efficacy of cognitive‐behavioral therapy for adults with ADHD, 2025-01-01 (article year))[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12434339/]
  • (NIST SP 800-218 SSDF v1.1, 2022-02-03)[https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/218/final]
  • (Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?, 2022-11-07)[https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622]
  • (Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot’s Code Contributions, 2021-12-16)[https://gangw.cs.illinois.edu/class/cs562/papers/copilot-sp22.pdf]
  • (Targeted Replication Study (Copilot generated code security), 2023-11-20)[https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11177]
  • (Vibe Coding Kills Open Source, 2026-01-21)[https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15494]