PaperlayerView exact revision on arXiv

Source-linked AI summary

Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI

Ranjan Sapkota, Konstantinos I. Roumeliotis, Manoj Karkee

arXiv:2505.19443v1cs.SEcs.AIcs.CL

TL;DR

The paper addresses how vibe coding and agentic coding differ in autonomy, developer roles, and software-engineering workflows. It reviews their interaction models, execution architectures, safety mechanisms, debugging strategies, tools, and use cases, concluding that the paradigms are complementary and should be combined within human-centered development. It also identifies trustworthy autonomy, explainability, governance, and collaboration as priorities for future agentic systems.

  • Problem

    The paper examines how to understand the boundaries, affordances, roles, control structures, and safety implications of vibe coding and agentic coding as AI-assisted development expands.

  • Method

    The review develops a taxonomy and compares the paradigms’ execution models, interaction patterns, safety protocols, debugging strategies, tool ecosystems, workflows, and applications.

  • Results

    The review finds that vibe and agentic coding are complementary paradigms, with distinct contributions to human-machine co-development rather than alternatives that require choosing only one.

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Future agentic AI should emphasize trustworthy autonomy, multi-agent orchestration, contextual memory, and human-centered interfaces.

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Agentic coding can produce skill atrophy, silent error propagation, and cascading faults when human oversight, observability, rollback mechanisms, or governance are insufficient.

Abstract

from arXiv · show

This review presents a comprehensive analysis of two emerging paradigms in AI-assisted software development: vibe coding and agentic coding. While both leverage large language models (LLMs), they differ fundamentally in autonomy, architectural design, and the role of the developer. Vibe coding emphasizes intuitive, human-in-the-loop interaction through prompt-based, conversational workflows that support ideation, experimentation, and creative exploration. In contrast, agentic coding enables autonomous software development through goal-driven agents capable of planning, executing, testing, and iterating tasks with minimal human intervention. We propose a detailed taxonomy spanning conceptual foundations, execution models, feedback loops, safety mechanisms, debugging strategies, and real-world tool ecosystems. Through comparative workflow analysis and 20 detailed use cases, we illustrate how vibe systems thrive in early-stage prototyping and education, while agentic systems excel in enterprise-grade automation, codebase refactoring, and CI/CD integration. We further examine emerging trends in hybrid architectures, where natural language interfaces are coupled with autonomous execution pipelines. Finally, we articulate a future roadmap for agentic AI, outlining the infrastructure needed for trustworthy, explainable, and collaborative systems. Our findings suggest that successful AI software engineering will rely not on choosing one paradigm, but on harmonizing their strengths within a unified, human-centered development lifecycle.

I. INTRODUCTION

The paper distinguishes vibe coding, which centers on human guidance of LLMs through natural-language interaction, from agentic coding, which delegates planning and execution to more autonomous AI systems. It frames this distinction as important for understanding developer roles, control, safety, and future human-AI collaboration.

  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding positions the developer as a high-level coordinator who uses iterative prompting and strategic direction rather than directly implementing every detail.The approach shifts attention toward intent specification, architectural vision, and interactive debugging.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic coding enables software agents to interpret high-level goals, decompose tasks, plan execution, and adapt to feedback with less continuous human oversight.Its architectural direction shifts more agency from the developer toward the AI system.
  • Developer Roles and Control: The paradigms differ in developer role and control: vibe coding keeps the developer as an ever-present conductor, whereas agentic coding casts the developer as a supervisor evaluating goals and outcomes.This shift raises questions about authorship, accountability, monitoring, debugging, safety, reliability, and trustworthiness.
  • Paper Motivation and Contribution: The paper presents a taxonomy of the paradigms to clarify their boundaries, affordances, use cases, and implications for human-AI collaboration.The introduction connects this taxonomy to better tooling, clearer expectations, and more robust collaboration.
  • The Semiotics of Vibe Coding: Vibe coding uses an iterative dialogue in which natural-language descriptions or examples are translated into code, then reviewed and refined by the developer.This semiotic layer makes code creation a process of co-construction between human and machine.
  • Skills for Vibe Coding: Effective vibe coding emphasizes conceptual problem formulation and architectural awareness alongside checkpoints, debugging, and context management.These skills support high-level guidance while version control provides recovery points for unpredictable generated changes.

3) Interaction Model and Workflow Integration:

Vibe coding uses rapid prompt-response interaction, while agentic coding integrates planning, tools, execution, memory, evaluation, and correction into autonomous workflows. The comparison extends from architectural components to an end-to-end Jules API-integration example and a broader taxonomy.

  • Vibe Coding Workflow: Vibe Coding tools support iterative prompt-response interaction, but developers typically manage execution and final validation themselves.The workflow is integrated into IDEs, browser editors, or terminal environments, with testing and integration remaining outside the generation pipeline.
  • Agentic Coding Workflow: Agentic systems interpret high-level goals and decompose them into executable subtasks before carrying out development workflows.Examples include API research, data-structure design, code insertion, documentation, and test planning.
  • Agentic Coding Workflow: Agents can use file systems, compilers, test suites, Git repositories, APIs, and browsers while modifying code, testing outputs, logging failures, and retrying.These capabilities support iterative execution rather than generation alone.
  • Jules Example: Jules autonomously completed a Gemini API integration by analyzing a repository, modifying code, updating documentation, creating a branch, and presenting changes for review.The workflow included new request and response classes, response parsing, configurable Unity Inspector parameters, and Git operations.
  • Comparative Taxonomy: The taxonomy compares vibe and agentic coding across autonomy, developer responsibility, tool integration, interaction patterns, and system maturity.The architectural discussion frames agentic coding as a transition toward self-directed planning, decision-making, and refinement.
  • Agentic Coding Workflow: Agentic coding combines planning, execution, tool interaction, evaluation, memory, and sandboxed operation within a cohesive goal-driven architecture.Its components include reasoning and planning modules, tool use, persistent context, isolated execution, and feedback mechanisms.

2) Shift in Developer Interaction and Control:

Agentic coding shifts developers from function-level co-piloting toward goal-level delegation, supervision, and final verification. Architecturally, this contrasts with vibe coding’s prompt-based, manually executed workflow and agentic systems’ integrated, sandboxed execution loops.

  • Agentic Coding: Agentic coding makes the developer a supervisor who defines missions, monitors behavior, and validates outcomes rather than issuing line-level instructions.The developer specifies functional targets, constraints, and requirements while the agent plans and initiates execution.
  • Agentic Coding: Developers review logs, intermediate artifacts, execution traces, test results, and change diffs, intervening on ambiguity, edge cases, or judgment-intensive tasks.Human evaluation remains required before integration or deployment.
  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding relies on developer prompts to an LLM, short-term context, and manual execution, testing, and integration.Its generation-first architecture separates code synthesis from runtime validation.
  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding has no embedded runtime or agent-native validation loop, so testing and validation use external services or manual execution.This creates a passive execution pipeline.
  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding’s generation-first design introduces latency in feedback loops and increases the developer’s cognitive burden.The architecture also lacks internal state management, agent memory, and runtime enforcement.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic architectures embed containerized or otherwise isolated runtimes and connect planning, execution, tool interaction, and feedback in multi-step pipelines.Sandboxing policies constrain memory, file I/O, and network access.
  • Agentic Coding: This closed-loop architecture reduces reliance on humans as runtime operators and supports multi-file refactoring, regression analysis, and continuous integration with minimal oversight.Execution becomes proactive, contextual, and adaptively managed by agents.

B. Autonomy and Feedback Loops in Vibe and Agentic Coding Paradigms

Vibe coding relies on developer-mediated prompting, evaluation, and refinement, whereas agentic coding uses autonomous planning, execution, testing, and corrective iteration. This difference makes vibe coding flexible for exploration but agentic coding better suited to repetitive, deterministic programming contexts.

  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding keeps validation and error detection outside the LLM, requiring developers to test outputs and refine prompts manually.Its stateless synthesis model has no intrinsic feedback or self-evaluation mechanism.
  • Vibe Coding: Vague prompts can produce hallucinated or contextually ambiguous outputs because vibe systems lack situational awareness and task-level memory.Specific prompts yield more focused implementations than underspecified requests.
  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding supports flexible exploratory and creative sessions but remains human-dependent when reliability, regression testing, and integration constraints matter.It is suitable for front-end prototyping, documentation drafting, and low-risk automation, but lacks self-driven error correction.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic coding runs planning, execution, testing, evaluation, and corrective iteration without human prompting between steps.Agents decompose high-level objectives into subtasks, implement and validate them, then retry or substitute strategies after failures.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic workflows improve fidelity in repetitive and deterministic contexts such as dependency management, CI/CD configuration, and large-scale test generation.A JavaScript-to-TypeScript migration can include module identification, static analysis, AST rewriting, and runtime testing without intervention at each step.
  • Agentic Coding: Telemetry, traceability, and layer-level performance metrics enable outcome-aware replanning and model fine-tuning in agentic execution pipelines.These capabilities support alignment between long-term goals and tactical implementation across multiple files, systems, and APIs.

C. Safety, Explainability, and System Constraints

Vibe coding externalizes safety, explainability, and validation to the developer and separate tools, while agentic systems embed execution safeguards and auditable controls. The contrasting architectures affect how each paradigm handles security, traceability, rollback, and production-oriented reliability.

  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding lacks runtime enforcement and runtime awareness, creating risks in security-sensitive or regulated environments.Safety and explainability therefore remain externalized concerns.
  • Vibe Coding: Vibe systems lack execution traceability, so they cannot record or justify decisions unless developers explicitly prompt or document them.This complicates inspection of hardcoded credentials, insecure API calls, and unsafe permission scopes.
  • Vibe Coding: Common vibe-coding risks include hardcoded secrets, insecure defaults, and absent audit trails.Generated code may embed plaintext credentials, omit input sanitization, or use overly permissive CORS headers.
  • Vibe Coding: External static-analysis tools can audit vibe-generated code, but developers must integrate them manually into the pipeline.Examples include SonarQube, CodeQL, and ESLint security plugins.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic frameworks embed safety constraints, explainability mechanisms, and runtime isolation for controlled execution and policy compliance.Sandboxed environments can scope file-system, memory, CPU, and network access.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic safeguards include namespace isolation, resource limits, logging hooks, and rollback triggers.These controls restrict access, capture actions and test results, and revert state after failures or errors.
  • Agentic Coding: Execution-graph logs support post-hoc inspection and diff analysis, while rollback reduces silent failures and irreversible changes.Together, these mechanisms make agentic systems more auditable and aligned with enterprise reliability standards.
  • Illustrative Workflow: In a JWT authentication example, vibe coding requires manual testing and prompt refinement, whereas agentic coding automates testing, exception logging, and retries.The comparison presents vibe coding as developer-led exploration and agentic coding as autonomous, testable construction.

IV. PRACTICAL WORKFLOW DIFFERENCES

Vibe coding positions developers as conversational co-creators who iteratively shape implementation, while agentic coding positions them as architects, planners, supervisors, and reviewers. The resulting cognitive and interaction models differ in how much responsibility is delegated to autonomous systems.

  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding lets developers articulate abstract requirements through iterative prompt-response cycles and progressively converge on working solutions.The approach lowers the activation threshold for idea exploration.
  • Vibe Coding: Vibe developers act as intent architects, creative directors, and explorers who formulate goals, curate outputs, and experiment with unfamiliar APIs or UI patterns.These roles center on directing and evaluating generated work rather than specifying every syntactic detail.
  • Vibe Coding: The vibe-coding cognitive model emphasizes “what-before-how,” promoting rapid feedback while leaving testing and validation to the developer.A login API request can be followed by prompts for unit tests and middleware refactoring.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic coding reframes developers as systems architects, strategic planners, and supervisory reviewers while agents execute code changes, integration tests, and version-control workflows.Developers define objectives that autonomous agents parse and decompose.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic roles include strategic planning, execution monitoring through trace logs, and review of correctness, maintainability, and security before integration.This distributes responsibility between objective setting, supervision, and approval.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic developers think in orchestration terms, with human intervention reduced mainly to exception handling or ambiguity resolution.A single objective may expand into token migration, CI updates, test reruns, and dependency auditing.

B. Workflow Patterns

Vibe coding uses exploratory, nonlinear prompt-and-feedback workflows, whereas agentic coding uses planned, stateful, recursive workflows. Vibe coding favors ideation and creative flow, while agentic coding supports validated automation and parallel work across complex systems.

  • Workflow Patterns: Vibe coding workflows are exploratory and nonlinear, with developers prompting, inspecting generated code, and providing incremental feedback.They are presented as optimal for interface prototyping, low-risk experimentation, and knowledge discovery.
  • Workflow Patterns: Dashboard prototyping illustrates vibe coding’s iterative pattern: generate a UI, add features through successive prompts, then request Cypress tests.The developer remains involved throughout the workflow.
  • Workflow Patterns: Agentic coding follows structured workflows built around task planning, state management, and recursive feedback loops.These workflows target enterprise-grade tasks requiring correctness, traceability, and automation.
  • Workflow Patterns: Automated dependency upgrades can combine version updates, compatibility resolution, changelog generation, and developer approval of the pull request.The example assigns execution steps to the agent while retaining review for the developer.
  • Workflow Patterns: Vibe coding reduces syntax and implementation burdens, enabling rapid ideation and creative flow for solo development, early prototyping, and teaching.Its suitability is tied to interaction-centered exploration rather than formal validation at scale.
  • Workflow Patterns: Agentic coding adds demands for system understanding, trust calibration, and supervision but scales across complex systems and asynchronous workflows.It also integrates formal validation into the development pipeline.
  • Workflow Patterns: Vibe coding supports collaborative hackathons and pair programming, whereas agentic coding distributes subsystem tasks across agents or agent groups for parallel pipeline scalability.The paradigms therefore differ in how collaboration and responsibility are organized.

E. Real-World Scenarios

Vibe coding uses iterative, intent-focused prompting for creative generation, while agentic coding uses hierarchical instructions and autonomous multi-step execution. Their contrasting workflows range from conversational feature development to structured codebase migration and CI validation.

  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding develops features through incremental natural-language prompts while the developer retains control over design decisions.The social-media example covers backend schema, API endpoints, frontend UI, ordering controls, and tests.
  • Comparative Workflow: Vibe coding prioritizes rapid ideation and developer-centered iteration, while agentic coding prioritizes structured task decomposition, automated execution, and debugging.The comparison presents these differences as architectural, affecting execution environments, review cycles, tool selection, and deployment suitability.
  • Prompting Strategies: Specific prompts improve precision in vibe coding, whereas vague requests such as “Make this more secure” can produce ambiguous or generic outputs.The example adds JWT authentication and then 2FA through successive refinement.
  • Prompting Strategies: Agentic prompts emphasize desired outcomes, contextual awareness, and decomposable task structures that support independent decision-making and adaptive correction.The review describes extended 16k–32k-token context windows and hierarchical, multi-phase execution.

B. Review and Debugging

Vibe coding relies on developers to inspect, test, and refine generated code, whereas agentic coding embeds runtime verification and recovery mechanisms. Consequently, vibe workflows favor exploratory control, while agentic workflows support scalable automation but still require oversight.

  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding detects and resolves errors through manual testing, visual inspection, and revised prompts rather than autonomous failure handling.Developers may use static analysis or linters, execute tests in an IDE or REPL, and ask follow-up debugging questions.
  • Vibe Coding: Vibe coding remains effective for prototyping, learning libraries, and customizing tools when interpretability and developer control outweigh automation.The approach is time-consuming but fosters developer engagement and intuition building.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic coding validates tasks through runtime evaluation and logging, with error-handling protocols such as rollback, patch substitution, and retry logic.These mechanisms are embedded in the agent’s runtime architecture.
  • Agentic Coding: Agentic feedback loops can execute tests, isolate failed diffs, revert changes, retry alternate patches, and finalize only when tests pass.The workflow describes a conditional path from refactoring through full test execution to finalization.
  • Operational Implications: This feedback-driven model supports CI/CD, automated patching, and enterprise refactoring while requiring oversight for project constraints and security standards.It reduces manual intervention, supports reproducibility, and scales across larger codebases.

C. Tool Ecosystems

Vibe tools center on accessible conversational assistance for rapid prototyping and ideation, while agentic platforms provide autonomous execution within controlled environments. The comparison links these architectures to different deployment and workflow needs, with hybridization presented as a practical direction.

  • Vibe Coding Tools: Vibe coding tools use prompt-response interfaces embedded in IDEs, browsers, or chats for code generation, explanations, and lightweight context sharing.Their design prioritizes accessibility, immediacy, and integration into creative flow.
  • Vibe Coding Tools: ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Replit Ghostwriter represent conversational tools supporting quick iteration, explanation, and ideation.The listed platforms differ in contextual documentation, multimodal reasoning, and browser-native IDE integration.
  • Vibe Coding Tools: These conversational tools are especially suited to solo developers, learners, and early-phase design exploration.Their capabilities align with tasks requiring rapid experimentation and explanation.
  • Agentic Coding Tools: Agentic platforms combine autonomous agents with containers, logs, and permission systems for code transformation, validation, and deployment.Their infrastructure supports continuous development and system-level interaction.
  • Agentic Coding Tools: Codex, Claude Code, and Jules support project-level execution, explainability or rollback, asynchronous repository work, and review before integration.Jules operates on cloned GitHub repositories in secure virtual machines and presents results for review.
  • Agentic Coding Tools: Agentic tools target scenarios requiring auditability, security enforcement, and autonomy across large distributed codebases.The implementation comparison places agentic coding closer to structured execution and enterprise deployment.
  • Comparative Analysis: Vibe coding favors rapid ideation and developer-centered iteration, whereas agentic coding emphasizes autonomous debugging and structured workflow integration.The paper frames their differences as architectural rather than merely stylistic.
  • Comparative Analysis: Hybrid workflows begin with creative prompting and transition to autonomous execution to combine early-stage flexibility with implementation and operational automation.The paper presents the paradigms as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

VI. USE CASES AND APPLICATIONS

Vibe coding is positioned for creative exploration, rapid prototyping, and technology learning, while agentic coding targets structured, high-reliability engineering at scale. The use cases span conversational product creation and tutoring to refactoring, routine maintenance, and autonomous bug repair.

  • Vibe Coding Applications: Vibe coding is most effective in early-stage and exploratory contexts requiring creativity, rapid feedback, and flexible control.The review identifies creative exploration, rapid prototyping, and learning new technologies as its dominant use cases.
  • Vibe Coding Applications: Creative exploration uses vibe tools to generate implementation variants and visualize UI or logic ideas during brainstorming and feature sketching.The workflow supports real-time experimentation with alternative designs.
  • Vibe Coding Applications: Vibe coding can produce full-stack MVP components, including REST APIs, frontend layouts, and test cases, through conversational iterations.The passage places this use case in agile environments and hackathons.
  • Vibe Coding Applications: Vibe tools support onboarding by providing explanations, context-sensitive snippets, and interactive troubleshooting for unfamiliar frameworks.Examples include Next.js, WebAssembly, and Rust.
  • Agentic Coding Applications: Agentic coding is designed for production and enterprise workflows where automation, scale, and reliability are critical.Its applications include codebase refactoring, routine engineering tasks, and regression bug fixing.
  • Agentic Coding Applications: Agentic refactoring can analyze legacy systems, update outdated patterns, rewrite dependencies, and run full test coverage with minimal human oversight.Python 2.7-to-3.x migration is given as a representative example.
  • Agentic Coding Applications: Routine agentic tasks include dependency upgrades, formatting, test regeneration, and CI/CD maintenance across large codebases.The review associates these tasks with consistent standards and reduced manual engineering overhead.
  • Agentic Coding Applications: Agentic regression repair combines log-based diagnosis, root-cause analysis, test execution, patching, and changelog updates to reduce MTTR.The passage describes this workflow as suited to mission-critical services.

Agentic Coding: 10 Applied Use Cases:

Agentic coding supports autonomous, multi-step software engineering workflows, from refactoring and documentation to performance optimization and feature implementation. Its emerging hybrid form combines conversational intent-setting with agent execution, validation, and human supervision.

  • Applied Use Cases: Agentic systems refactor legacy code across files, update tests, validate transformations, and flag unresolved compatibility issues.The workflow can also generate changelogs and support SBOM-oriented supply-chain hygiene.
  • Applied Use Cases: Agents diagnose regressions by running tests, tracing failures to code changes, applying targeted patches, and retesting fixes.Successful fixes can be committed with rollback metadata, reducing human debugging cycles during post-deployment work.
  • Applied Use Cases: Agentic workflows automate API documentation, performance profiling, optimization, and end-to-end feature implementation across frontend, backend, database, and testing layers.Performance workflows produce before-and-after metrics, while feature workflows can deploy changes to staging environments.
  • Hybrid Models: Hybrid systems parse abstract objectives into submodules, execute and test each step, and present logs and artifacts for review.This architecture combines conversational ideation, controlled execution, and real-time refinement, while explainability and safe prompt handling remain challenges.
  • Adoption: Industry adoption separates agentic systems in enterprise automation from vibe-oriented tools in education and individual development.Reported barriers include governance and security concerns, distrust of black-box automation, and retraining needs for AI-centric workflows.
  • Hybrid Models: Balanced workflows let developers express intent conversationally while agents implement components under supervision and humans enforce architecture and policy compliance.The proposed synthesis combines vibe coding’s creative speed with agentic coding’s repeatability, quality assurance, and architectural rigor.

VIII. CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS

The review identifies architectural, procedural, and cognitive limitations affecting both coding paradigms, especially oversight, explainability, security, and lifecycle integration. It also describes infrastructure directions intended to make agentic systems safer and more scalable.

  • Agentic Coding Limitations: Agentic coding risks reduced oversight, opaque execution, uncontrolled infrastructure access, skill atrophy, and diminished situational awareness.The stated concern is that developers may become less prepared to intervene during edge-case failures or crises.
  • Agentic Coding Limitations: Multi-module agents can silently propagate faults or regressions when rollback mechanisms and observability hooks are absent.Agents may modify code, configurations, and runtime API integrations, allowing one subsystem’s fault to cascade downstream.
  • Security: Expanded agent runtime privileges create exposure to sensitive-data disclosure, token mishandling, unverified dependencies, prompt injection, and secret leakage.The roadmap calls for sandboxing, zero-trust policies, policy engines, rollback triggers, and runtime permission controls.
  • Vibe Coding Limitations: Vibe coding outputs are difficult to validate because model decision processes are opaque, quality can vary across similar prompts, and production context is often missing.Missing authentication, deployment, CI/CD, or architectural context can produce code that works in isolation but fails in real environments.
  • Vibe Coding Limitations: Rapid vibe-coding iteration can accumulate duplication, inconsistent naming, security shortcuts, and other forms of technical debt.Suggested interventions include mandatory linting, automated test scaffolding, and enforced reviews.
  • Future Infrastructure: Future agentic systems require explainable execution, assurance standards, multi-agent coordination, persistent memory, and feedback-based refinement.Proposed mechanisms include decision traces, semantic diffs, rollback records, specialized sub-agents, contextual memory, and operational learning.

D. Human-AI Collaboration Infrastructure

The proposed collaboration infrastructure positions humans as strategic planners, architectural reviewers, and supervisors supported by visualization, diagnostics, training, and intervention tools. The review frames hybrid workflows as a complementarity between conversational ideation and autonomous implementation.

  • Human-AI Collaboration Infrastructure: Human-agent interfaces should provide visualization dashboards, interpretability overlays, simulations, and real-time diagnostics for effective supervision.Developer training in interpreting, configuring, and intervening in agent behavior is presented as essential.
  • Strategic Integration and Hybrid Workflow Design: The review recommends combining vibe coding for ideation and experimentation with agentic coding for precision, automation, and long-horizon planning.This division assigns creative front-end work to vibe tools and production-oriented scaling to agentic systems.
  • Strategic Integration and Hybrid Workflow Design: Hybrid workflows connect conceptual drafts, agent refinement and deployment, and human orchestration through continuous feedback loops.The review associates this arrangement with software systems intended to adapt to future complexity.
  • Strategic Integration and Hybrid Workflow Design: Agentic AI’s roadmap requires trustworthy infrastructure, human-centered design, and rigorous governance rather than algorithmic capability alone.The paper characterizes agentic maturity as a socio-technical transformation of collaboration, responsibility, and software creation.
  • Historical Context: The review traces agents from symbolic automation through learning-based and networked systems to LLM-based agents using planning, tool use, memory, and feedback.It presents this evolution as a basis for developing more trustworthy and transparent systems.
  • Conclusion: The conclusion presents vibe and agentic coding as complementary pillars, with conversational ideation fused to autonomous implementation and supported by trustworthy autonomy, orchestration, memory, and human-centered interfaces.The review’s comparative synthesis emphasizes distinct roles rather than a choice between paradigms.
Loading 2505.19443v1…