In recent months, a growing number of clients have been asking us a deceptively simple question: can we build a mobile app today using only AI, by just writing prompts into tools like Claude or ChatGPT, without involving real developers? The idea is attractive. With the rise of prompt-based coding tools, it feels like we are entering a new age—one where describing your intent in natural language is enough to build complex software. You imagine a feature, write a sentence, and boom: the AI delivers working code.
This phenomenon, now often called "Vibe Coding," promises an exciting new workflow. Instead of writing line-by-line instructions, developers collaborate with an AI assistant, communicating in high-level intentions, iterating rapidly, skipping the drudgery. It feels like magic. It feels like freedom. It feels like we can do away with all the friction of development.
But as enchanting as it seems at first, that illusion rarely survives contact with the reality of a serious project.
There is an undeniable initial thrill. When you first start using a tool like Claude Code, the speed is incredible. You can create layouts, build entire screens, and get working functionality in minutes. It feels empowering. The boundary between your idea and its execution melts away. You get results faster than ever. For early prototyping or hackathon-style explorations, it's a dream.
At this stage, it's easy to conclude that development has changed forever—that maybe the era of full development teams is over. You wonder if you really need senior engineers, architects, or dedicated QA anymore. The AI seems to be doing everything.
Then the second phase begins. You add more features. The app grows. State management becomes necessary. Navigation flows start to get messy. You realize that AI has no true memory of your app’s structure. It forgets decisions you made earlier. It writes new code that breaks existing code. You start debugging things you didn’t write or fully understand. You re-prompt to fix bugs, only to introduce new ones elsewhere.
Suddenly, the productivity gain starts to vanish. You spend more and more time clarifying your instructions, managing the prompt history, rewriting or manually editing generated code, and chasing edge cases. You go from being a builder to being a supervisor, editor, and firefighter.
The illusion breaks. Vibe Coding, you realize, is not a development process. It's an interface.
The key misunderstanding here is that prompting is often confused with designing. But the moment you move beyond isolated components or simple flows, you need to think in terms of systems. You need architecture. You need modularity. You need long-term maintainability, testability, error handling, security, scalability, accessibility—and AI won’t do that for you.
At best, the LLM will fill in some blanks. It might help you write that Redux reducer, or scaffold a new screen. But it won’t tell you whether Redux is the right tool to begin with. It won’t warn you that your navigation model will create dead ends. It won’t proactively test or audit your analytics setup. It doesn’t know the business context, your user persona, or what matters most in your market.
This is where real development work begins. And this is where Vibe Coding reveals its limits.
One of the biggest traps with Vibe Coding is the illusion of speed. Yes, you can produce something quickly. But what you produce is often fragile, inconsistent, or overfitted to a very narrow use case. The real cost comes later—when you try to scale, test, or iterate. Without a clear architectural foundation, the codebase becomes brittle. Without proper specs, documentation, and ownership, onboarding new developers is a nightmare. And without rigorous QA, bugs multiply silently.
Many teams fall into this trap: they get a fast MVP, demo it to investors or stakeholders, then realize it’s completely unusable as a base for a real product. They end up rewriting the entire thing.
Read more : Mobile App Development Costs: Factors & Budget Breakdown
Let’s be clear—we’re not dismissing AI. At Guarana, we use it every day. It’s an incredible co-pilot. It accelerates development, helps with boilerplate, catches typos, and even suggests useful patterns. We prompt Claude to generate test data, explain unfamiliar APIs, or translate logic between frameworks. It’s a boost to our productivity—but it’s not the driver.
There is a fundamental difference between using AI to augment your development process and trying to replace it. The first approach brings real gains. The second usually leads to fragile foundations and painful rebuilds.
Most importantly, building an app is not just about code. It's about product thinking. It's about user experience. It's about aligning technical choices with business goals. It's about designing for edge cases, regulatory compliance, device constraints, localization, offline behavior, analytics, and so much more.
AI doesn’t know your users. It doesn’t care about your retention rate. It doesn’t challenge your assumptions or warn you when you're solving the wrong problem. That still requires human judgment, team collaboration, and a deep understanding of the ecosystem you're operating in.
If you’re a founder or product owner wondering whether you can build your app with just prompts, here’s our answer: use Vibe Coding for what it does best. Rapid exploration. Fast iteration. Early prototyping. But don’t expect it to replace the discipline, experience, and structure of real development.
Great apps are not just well-coded. They are well-thought-out. They are well-structured. They are designed with care and built with a long-term perspective. No amount of prompting can replace that.
So yes, let's embrace AI. But let’s do it with clarity—and never forget that at the heart of every great app is not just code, but craft.