1. The Hidden Trap of Vibe Coding: Efficiency Can Lead to Scope Creep

With AI-assisted development becoming the norm, the emergence of Claude Code has made “vibe coding” popular—where developers can quickly generate functions with just a prompt, alleviating the pressure of late-night coding. Particularly for developers working on side projects or small tasks, it feels like a powerful tool that can expedite delivery.

However, few realize that the efficiency of vibe coding hides a critical trap: scope creep. Just like an AI product manager faced with the Dowyn project, what starts as a clear delivery plan can quickly expand with late-night thoughts like “wouldn’t it be cooler to add this feature?” A simple prompt in Claude Code can lead to adding a “small feature” to the code.

Before they know it, the original delivery plan has quietly doubled in scope, with none of the initial content remaining, wasting significant time on unnecessary features and derailing project progress. This isn’t an isolated incident; many developers have experienced similar situations: the more they aim for efficiency, the more they stray off course; the more they want to perfect, the harder it is to deliver on time.

Today, I will share practical insights from this AI product manager’s experience with three simple, actionable techniques that can retain the efficiency of vibe coding while maintaining development boundaries, eliminating the internal friction caused by scope creep.

Let’s clarify the core tool, Claude Code: it is an AI-assisted coding tool that requires no open-source knowledge, can be used directly online, supports multiple programming languages, and can quickly respond to coding prompts, saving developers significant manual coding time. Whether you are a professional developer or a side project enthusiast, it is easy to get started, and its basic features are free, meeting the needs of daily development and side projects.

2. Core Breakdown: 3 Practical Techniques to Control the Scope of Vibe Coding

Scope creep in vibe coding does not occur suddenly; it is the result of accumulating seemingly harmless small decisions. To avoid this situation, you don’t need to rely on willpower; simply establish a straightforward constraint system. These three techniques have been tested to significantly reduce the likelihood of scope creep.

Technique 1: Stick to the Delivery Plan and Let Claude See the “Bottom Line”

This is the easiest and most effective step to execute. Many people stray off course because they forget the initial goal during development, adding whatever comes to mind. The AI product manager’s approach is surprisingly simple—create a file named CLAUDE.md in the root directory of the project code repository.

This file does not need to contain a complete delivery plan; just write down the project’s “core commitments” (e.g., “The core of Dowyn is to achieve simple and efficient task management, prioritizing basic add, edit, and delete functions”) at the top, clearly and concisely.

There are two key reasons for this: first, Claude Code automatically reads the CLAUDE.md file at the start of each session, making the core commitments the “precondition” for receiving prompts; second, developers can develop a habit of reviewing this file before entering any non-trivial prompts.

The steps are simple:

1. Open the project root directory and create a text file named CLAUDE.md;
2. At the top of the file, write 1-2 sentences outlining the core commitments of the project without adding any unnecessary content;
3. Whenever a late-night thought arises to “add a small feature,” first open CLAUDE.md and review the core commitments.

In practice, half of these thoughts will automatically disappear—many “cool ideas” are actually unrelated to the core of the project. The remaining half should be recorded in a file named later.md, to be revisited after the core functionality is delivered, optimizing without affecting progress or wasting good ideas.

Technique 2: Budget Your Prompts by Asking 3 Questions to Filter Out Useless Features

When coding with Claude Code, the most common mistake is underestimating prompts—thinking that a single prompt is trivial and that deleting a useless function is not a hassle. However, some prompts can hide significant time costs: for example, a prompt to “add a notification system” may seem simple but could require three weekends of debugging and involve substantial changes to existing code.

Therefore, this AI product manager developed a habit: before entering any non-trivial prompt, he performs a “budget assessment” by asking himself three questions. If any answer is “uncertain,” he saves the prompt as a draft instead of sending it immediately.

These three questions are:

1. How long will it take me to thoroughly test this feature? (For example, “5 minutes to test” versus “2 days to debug” have completely different priorities);
2. How much existing code will it impact? (The less it changes, the lower the risk and the less likely it is to disrupt the existing rhythm);
3. Two weeks from now, will I still find this feature necessary? (Many spur-of-the-moment ideas lose value after a couple of days).

He noted that this habit cut his scope creep rate in half. Prompts saved as drafts that survive 48 hours are often genuinely valuable and worth adding; those that don’t survive, no matter how cool they seemed at the time, are merely time-wasting “futile efforts.”

Technique 3: Let Claude Be the “Skeptic”—Deny First, Then Build

This is a technique he took a long time to realize—initially, he only used Claude Code as a “builder,” generating whatever he thought of without any questioning until he wasted a lot of time adding a feature he deemed “essential.”

Now, for any feature requiring more than a few hours, he first asks Claude Code to switch roles and act as a “skeptical PM” (product manager), denying the feature before suggesting a better alternative. The prompt can be used directly with minimal modification:

Pretend you’re a sceptical PM reviewing this idea before sprint planning. What are the three strongest reasons not to build this? Estimate the maintenance cost. Suggest three smaller things that would deliver more user value instead.

This translates to: “Assume you are a skeptical product manager reviewing this idea before sprint planning. Please list the three strongest reasons not to build this feature, estimate the maintenance cost, and propose three smaller alternatives that would deliver more user value.”

He admits that Claude’s answers may not always be correct, but they help him “calm down”—not only can they eliminate seemingly attractive but ultimately useless features, but they also provide lower-cost, higher-value alternatives that he might not have considered on his own.

3. Dialectical Analysis: How to Balance Flexibility and Boundaries in Vibe Coding?

Undeniably, the emergence of vibe coding has broken the tediousness of traditional development, allowing developers to unleash their creativity more freely. This approach, especially for side projects and personal endeavors, can significantly enhance motivation and prevent falling into internal friction due to excessive planning.

However, this does not mean that vibe coding can be “unrestrained.” Many people fall into the trap of scope creep not because of issues with vibe coding itself but due to a misunderstanding of its core—vibe coding’s essence is “efficient building,” not “arbitrary addition”; its advantage lies in “saving coding time,” not “unlimited feature expansion.”

Just like the AI product manager encountered in the Dowyn project, he initially thought that “adding more features would make the project more complete” but overlooked a core point: what users truly need is the stable implementation of core functions, not a pile of irrelevant “additional features.” Scope creep not only slows progress but also leads developers into a state of “doing a lot but not delivering core value.”

Conversely, building a constraint system and controlling scope is not about “limiting creativity” but about making creativity more valuable. Those ideas temporarily placed in later.md and those optimized after being denied by Claude are not discarded; instead, they are reserved for a more suitable time—after the core functionality is delivered, they can be iteratively optimized, ensuring progress while continually improving the product.

This raises a question for all developers to ponder: are we developing to “create more features” or to “produce valuable products”? How should we balance the flexibility of vibe coding with the boundaries of development?

4. Practical Significance: These 3 Techniques Address Core Pain Points in Side Projects/Small Projects

For most developers, whether working on side projects, personal small projects, or participating in small team development, the core pain point is “limited time and energy”—there is not enough time to experiment, nor enough energy to deal with meaningless internal friction, all while wanting to deliver efficiently and create valuable products.

These three techniques precisely address this pain point. Their value lies not in being “profound” but in being “practical and low-cost”: no need to master complex tools, no need to spend extra time; just develop three simple habits to easily control scope creep.

For side project developers, this means avoiding the embarrassment of “burning the midnight oil with no progress,” delivering projects on time, balancing main jobs with side income, and alleviating anxiety about “getting more chaotic.” For personal project developers, it allows focusing on core value, avoiding futile efforts, and getting projects off the ground faster to receive user feedback sooner. For small teams, it helps unify the development pace, preventing everyone from adding features at will, thus enhancing team collaboration efficiency.

More importantly, these three techniques embody a more rational development mindset—avoiding blind pursuit of “speed” or piling on features, instead focusing on core values and progressing step by step. In an era where AI-assisted development is increasingly prevalent, this mindset is more crucial than any tool.

5. Interactive Topic: Have You Fallen into the Scope Creep Trap of Vibe Coding?

I believe many friends using AI tools like Claude Code and ChatGPT for development have had similar experiences: a spur-of-the-moment small feature added becomes a “burden” that slows progress; a simple project becomes increasingly complex and ultimately fizzles out.

Have you encountered the scope creep trap while using vibe coding? How did you resolve it? Which of these three techniques do you think best fits your development scenario?

Feel free to share your experiences and thoughts in the comments section. You can also discuss how you usually control project scope and avoid internal friction, exchanging ideas to learn from each other and develop efficiently!