Show HN: I built a wizard to turn ideas into AI coding agent-ready specs (vibescaffold.dev)
How it works: - Step 1: Define your product vision and MVP - Step 2: AI helps create technical architecture and data models - Step 3: Generate a staged development plan - Step 4: Create an AGENTS.md for automated workflows
I've used AI coding tools for awhile. Before this workflow (and now, this tool), I kept getting "close but not quite" results from AI coding tools. I learned that the more context & guidance I gave these tools up front, the better results I got.
The other thing I have found with most tools that attempt to improve on "vibe coding" is that they add abstraction. To me, this just adds to the problem. AI coding agents are valuable, but they are error-prone - you need to be an active participation in their work. This workflow is designed to provide a scaffolding for these AI agents, while minimizing additional abstraction.
Would love feedback on the workflow - especially curious if others find the upfront planning helpful or constraining.
18 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 38.4 ms ] threadUnless your tool has people skills, this engineer can just take the spec to the agent ;)
I like the styling, it's really slick. I also like that you enable me to use the tool online without signing up. I was curious about how you're supporting this, and paying for inference, but I see now that you haven't really wired up anything. When I try to generate my 1pager, it returns a placeholder.
> Turn your messy ideas...
I'm not a fan of this framing. Messy has negative connotations, so it's not clear why you're insulting me when we just met. ;)
The wizard:
There's a bit of duplication, since you have "Tell the agent..." as well as "Tell me...", both conveying the same information.
I can jump through steps without competing prior ones. Isn't that going to cause a problem?
It's hard to truly evaluate this further without seeing it in action. As other authors have said, many agents already support Plan Mode, so it it's important for you to distinguish yourself from that.
I also fixed the wizard text, I agree.
I also fixed the step jumping.
Would love to hear your feedback if you try it again with the fixes in place :)
(And then the implementation plan is fed to the same sort of AI that you were going to give the "idea" to in the first place.)
If doing this gives good results, then it shouldn't be necessary.
I'm using AI a lot, in planning but I take close manual oversight on specs and development plan and still read all active path code (give AI a little but not too much leeway on testing, since sometimes they start writing test asserting true == true).
there's no need for an app like this anyway.
You want this as a series of prompts that handle the various stages.
Now you are going to have one write out instructions for an AI?! I guess we know how the AI apocalypse gets started!
If you're looking for feedback, you could include a tiny section on the homepage about how to run the output docs. e.g. put them in a folder, point Claude Code/Codex to it and give it the prompt.
Thanks for building this!