Why vibe coding bugs cluster
An agent optimizes for the path you described. You describe the thing you want to happen, so the happy path gets built carefully and everything around it gets built plausibly. Plausible is the operative word: the code compiles, the screen renders, and the assumptions were never checked against reality.
That is why the failures are predictable. They are always at the edges of the description.
The four clusters, in the order they bite
Persistence. The screen updates, the database does not. A reload reveals it instantly. Reload after every write before you believe anything.
Empty and error states. Zero results, a failed request, a rejected input. None of these were in your prompt. Try each deliberately. They break more often than the happy path.
The second account. Ownership, permissions and visibility are assumed from the single session that built the app. Sign in as someone else before anyone else does.
The fourth is subtler: yesterday's features. Each new instruction can quietly undo something that worked, and nobody is checking the old behavior because the conversation has moved on.
The check that scales with prompting
Manual checking works for an afternoon and then degrades, because the surface grows every time you prompt and your patience does not. What you want is the checks written down in plain language and run automatically, so yesterday's features get re-verified without you deciding to.
Setup puts that in the agent's hands, so checking happens alongside building rather than as a separate chore.
None of this needs a terminal. Create a project in the TestSprite dashboard, describe the check in plain language, and point it at your app. Developers on your team can drive the same thing from the command line if they prefer, which is in the CLI repository.
Ten minutes that catch most of it
Sign up, sign out, sign back in. The most common total failure, and the first thing a real user does.
Create, reload, confirm it survived. Catches the persistence cluster outright.
Submit something invalid. You are checking that it fails clearly rather than silently succeeding.
Do the main flow as a brand new account. Catches the permissions cluster.
None of these require reading code, and together they find most of what would otherwise be found by a stranger.
Why the same bug keeps coming back
The most common complaint about building this way is not that things break, it is that fixing one thing breaks another, repeatedly. That is not a model failing. It is a missing record.
Each instruction is interpreted against the current state of the code and nothing else. There is no list of behaviors that already had to keep working, so the agent has no way to know that the change you asked for conflicts with something you established last Tuesday. From its point of view there is no conflict, because last Tuesday is not in the room.
Written checks are that record. They do not make the agent smarter, they make your intent durable. The practical effect is that the third and fourth rounds of changes stop undoing the first two, which is the point at which building this way starts feeling reliable rather than exhausting.
Before it goes anywhere real
Once other people will use the app, the checks should run on every change rather than when you remember.
The GitHub App is a webhook you set up in the TestSprite dashboard. It listens for the deployment event your pipeline already produces, so nothing in your repository changes.
GitHub Actions puts the step inside your own workflow, configured from the terminal.
Letting the checks run themselves
TestSprite is how the ten minutes of checking in this page stops being something you do by hand. You describe each flow once, in plain language, and it runs them against your app after every change.
That directly fixes the thing people find most frustrating about building this way. The written checks are the record of what already had to keep working, so a new instruction gets verified against them rather than interpreted in isolation. The loop where fixing one thing breaks another stops being the default.
Nothing here needs a terminal or a test file. Create a project in the dashboard, point it at your app, and describe the four checks above. Developers on your team can drive the same thing from the command line if they prefer.
Is vibe coding just riskier?
It changes where the risk sits. Less risk of a typo, more risk of an unexamined assumption. The response is not to go back to reading every line, it is to check behavior systematically.
Why does fixing one thing break another?
Because each instruction is interpreted in the context of the current code, not against a record of what already had to keep working. Written checks provide that record.
Do I need to write tests?
Not in code. Describe the flow in plain language, keep it, and have it run automatically after every change.
How do I know the check is real?
Break something deliberately and confirm the check fails. A check that never fails is not protecting anything, and this takes a minute to verify.
When should I start checking?
Before you show it to anyone. The cost of a check written now is minutes; the cost after someone else has found the bug is much higher.
Check the four clusters, not the code.
Vibe coding bugs gather around persistence, empty states, second accounts and features you built yesterday. Ten minutes covers most of them, and writing those checks down is what stops them coming back as you keep prompting.