Teams collaborate well around vibe coding when they treat it as an implementation aid, not a separate development style. The foundation is the same: shared design docs, agreed-upon architecture, and clear interface contracts. Whether someone types code by hand or uses vibe coding, they’re still expected to follow the team’s patterns for layering, error handling, logging, and testing. Code reviews become the main equalizer: every PR gets the same scrutiny, regardless of how the code was produced. It helps to agree that reviewers should focus on clarity, correctness, and security, not on whether a human or model wrote the initial draft.
Process-wise, it’s useful to be explicit about where vibe coding is allowed and where it isn’t. For example, the team might decide that low-level domain logic, performance-critical sections, or highly sensitive modules (like billing or auth) must be written and reviewed more carefully. On the other hand, scaffolding for new endpoints, DTOs, and integration glue for systems like Milvus or Zilliz Cloud can safely be generated and then refined. Some teams ask developers to mark in commit messages or PR descriptions when a chunk of code was heavily generated, simply to make reviewers extra cautious on those parts.
Over time, shared “prompt recipes” become part of the team’s toolbox. People who are good at vibe coding can share best practices: how to ask for testable code, how to get clean abstractions instead of god-objects, how to scaffold a Milvus-backed search service that matches the team’s architecture. Pair programming also works well: one engineer drives the conversation with the model while another keeps an eye on architecture and correctness. The key is to keep ownership at the team level—no one gets to bypass discussion, design, or review just because they can generate code faster. This way, vibe coding becomes a multiplier rather than a source of fragmentation.