Yes, vibe coding can significantly reduce boilerplate without harming maintainability when developers use it intentionally. Many repetitive tasks—such as defining DTOs, setting up configuration files, implementing CRUD routes, or writing ingestion utilities—follow predictable patterns that vibe coding can reproduce consistently. By automating these tasks, developers spend less time on mechanical work and more time on architecture, logic, and review. The key is ensuring that the generated code follows project standards, naming conventions, and organizational patterns that match the rest of the system.
Maintainability improves when developers prompt the model to create modular, readable code rather than overly compact or “clever” implementations. Clear class boundaries, descriptive naming, and well-organized directories are critical. For example, when building a Milvus-based vector search app, you might ask the model to generate separate modules for schema definitions, client initialization, ingestion utilities, and query logic. This separation makes the codebase easier to extend later and prevents logic from becoming tangled inside a single large file. Because vibe coding can replicate patterns consistently, it can actually reinforce structure when used well.
What matters most is maintaining control over the architecture. Developers should avoid letting the model regenerate entire modules unless necessary because it may introduce inconsistencies or break existing interfaces. Instead, provide the model with the specific file that needs modification, along with any related definitions it should respect. Combined with code review, automated formatting, type checking, and unit testing, vibe coding becomes a tool that speeds up routine tasks without sacrificing long-term maintainability. Used thoughtfully, it becomes an aid to clean architecture rather than a threat to it.