logo
From Vibe Coding To Agentic Engineering: Redefining SDLC With One-Pizza Teams

From Vibe Coding To Agentic Engineering: Redefining SDLC With One-Pizza Teams

Forbes4 hours ago
Serge Haziyev, CTO, Advanced Technologies at SoftServe. 25+ years helping Fortune 100s and startups capitalize on emerging tech.
The vibe coding phenomenon emerged earlier this year—seen by some as a joke, by others as a threat and by a few as a genuinely helpful productivity approach. Ever since Andrej Karpathy introduced the term to the community, it has sparked ongoing debate across social platforms.
But one key question remains: Can this prompt-driven coding style, enabled by agentic AI tools like Cursor and others, scale across development teams and be harnessed by businesses investing heavily in AI for productivity?
While vibe coding proves valuable for generating small applications and rapid prototypes, it struggles when applied to larger codebases and more complex software systems developed by teams rather than individuals. The challenge often lies in the fact that the resulting code falls far short of production-grade quality.
An increasing number of practitioners, myself included, believe that to effectively leverage agentic AI in real-life projects, we need to redefine the software development paradigm, particularly the people, processes and tools components of the SDLC (or PDLC) equation.
For short, we can call this "agentic engineering" and define its key objective as achieving faster time to market with smaller teams and reduced manual effort, effectively lowering development costs without compromising the quality of the resulting software.
Let's explore the three aspects of the SDLC that require revision: people, process and tools.
People
Most software development teams today follow the two-pizza team model, based on Jeff Bezos' idea that no team should be so large that it takes more than two pizzas to feed. This typically translates to eight to 12 individuals, with about half of them spending their full day working directly with code.
Coding, in fact, is a highly brain-intensive activity. It's no secret that in the software development industry, engineers often spend only about one hour per day actually writing code. Multiple studies from respected sources, such as Microsoft Research, support this observation.
On average, about three hours a day are spent working with code—reviewing, debugging and writing unit tests. The rest of the workday is often filled with communication, documentation or meditating on complex problems. The larger the team, the more time is typically spent on internal communication.
As AI agents can autonomously execute part of a developer's activities, this leads to smaller teams where fewer people write code directly and instead leverage the agents, which act as a team of virtual developers.
Here's something new in the one-pizza team model: a role called the Intelligence Engineer. This role is solely responsible for configuring, operating and customizing the agents. Think of it like a flight engineer in the early days of aviation—a crucial crew member responsible for the proper functioning of the aircraft.
Process
In traditional Scrum, which is commonly adopted across the software industry, each sprint lasts no longer than one month and typically spans two weeks. The cadence is defined by the time lag between planning and the retrospective.
Now, imagine for a moment that development time has been reduced to zero. Once a user story enters the backlog, it immediately materializes as code.
Of course, AI agentic development tools aren't quite there yet. But current performance already enables the translation of well-described tasks into code in minutes rather than hours or days.
Understanding this leads us to redefine the SDLC process, as some have already observed that structured communication and evaluation are becoming the new bottlenecks.
This shift elevates the role of written specifications: first, to align humans; and second, to translate intentions clearly to agents, minimizing ambiguity in the resulting program.
Wait, wasn't that exactly what the waterfall process did, with its emphasis on upfront specification? The very approach that Scrum later challenged?
Waterfall emphasized upfront specifications to reduce ambiguity in execution. In the AI-driven era, we're seeing a similar need, but not for static specs. Instead, we need executable intent: interpretable, testable and traceable descriptions that replace the role of traditional source code.
When, in the near future, code can be generated in minutes from a sprint backlog based on new specifications, the purpose of sprint cadence will change dramatically. It will no longer govern the 'time to write code,' but rather the 'time to think, align and evaluate.'
Tools
The plethora of prompt-driven coding tools appearing each month puzzles many engineering leaders. Evaluating the available tools for specific project needs alone could require a dedicated team working full time on just this activity.
Then comes the build versus buy question: Can universal, publicly available tools like Cursor, Windsurf, Lovable, Builder.io, Devin and others be effective in a specific project environment based on X, Y and Z technologies? Or is it better to build custom agents tailored to project needs using agentic frameworks such as Claude Code, OpenAI Codex or Gemini CLI?
Only time will tell which approach will prevail, but one trend we can already observe is that prompt engineering (the core of vibe coding) is giving way to context engineering, which promotes a more systematic approach to feeding LLMs with complete and relevant information.
While some companies are already experimenting with the context engineering approach alongside spec-driven development for their in-house agents, we can expect such tools to become available to a broader market soon, with kiro.dev being a good example.
Sure, bringing in context and project specifics requires much more effort than simply installing an IDE. But that's the point with humans, too—think of it as onboarding a new team member who doesn't drink coffee...or eat pizza.
The Future Of Software Development Starts With Redefinition
Vibe coding is uncovering the need for a systemic shift in how we build software. As agentic AI becomes more capable, organizations must move beyond the novelty of agentic engineering and embrace it as a disciplined framework. This means rethinking team composition, adapting processes to accelerate alignment and evaluation and choosing tools not just for output, but for orchestration.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

From Vibe Coding To Agentic Engineering: Redefining SDLC With One-Pizza Teams
From Vibe Coding To Agentic Engineering: Redefining SDLC With One-Pizza Teams

Forbes

time4 hours ago

  • Forbes

From Vibe Coding To Agentic Engineering: Redefining SDLC With One-Pizza Teams

Serge Haziyev, CTO, Advanced Technologies at SoftServe. 25+ years helping Fortune 100s and startups capitalize on emerging tech. The vibe coding phenomenon emerged earlier this year—seen by some as a joke, by others as a threat and by a few as a genuinely helpful productivity approach. Ever since Andrej Karpathy introduced the term to the community, it has sparked ongoing debate across social platforms. But one key question remains: Can this prompt-driven coding style, enabled by agentic AI tools like Cursor and others, scale across development teams and be harnessed by businesses investing heavily in AI for productivity? While vibe coding proves valuable for generating small applications and rapid prototypes, it struggles when applied to larger codebases and more complex software systems developed by teams rather than individuals. The challenge often lies in the fact that the resulting code falls far short of production-grade quality. An increasing number of practitioners, myself included, believe that to effectively leverage agentic AI in real-life projects, we need to redefine the software development paradigm, particularly the people, processes and tools components of the SDLC (or PDLC) equation. For short, we can call this "agentic engineering" and define its key objective as achieving faster time to market with smaller teams and reduced manual effort, effectively lowering development costs without compromising the quality of the resulting software. Let's explore the three aspects of the SDLC that require revision: people, process and tools. People Most software development teams today follow the two-pizza team model, based on Jeff Bezos' idea that no team should be so large that it takes more than two pizzas to feed. This typically translates to eight to 12 individuals, with about half of them spending their full day working directly with code. Coding, in fact, is a highly brain-intensive activity. It's no secret that in the software development industry, engineers often spend only about one hour per day actually writing code. Multiple studies from respected sources, such as Microsoft Research, support this observation. On average, about three hours a day are spent working with code—reviewing, debugging and writing unit tests. The rest of the workday is often filled with communication, documentation or meditating on complex problems. The larger the team, the more time is typically spent on internal communication. As AI agents can autonomously execute part of a developer's activities, this leads to smaller teams where fewer people write code directly and instead leverage the agents, which act as a team of virtual developers. Here's something new in the one-pizza team model: a role called the Intelligence Engineer. This role is solely responsible for configuring, operating and customizing the agents. Think of it like a flight engineer in the early days of aviation—a crucial crew member responsible for the proper functioning of the aircraft. Process In traditional Scrum, which is commonly adopted across the software industry, each sprint lasts no longer than one month and typically spans two weeks. The cadence is defined by the time lag between planning and the retrospective. Now, imagine for a moment that development time has been reduced to zero. Once a user story enters the backlog, it immediately materializes as code. Of course, AI agentic development tools aren't quite there yet. But current performance already enables the translation of well-described tasks into code in minutes rather than hours or days. Understanding this leads us to redefine the SDLC process, as some have already observed that structured communication and evaluation are becoming the new bottlenecks. This shift elevates the role of written specifications: first, to align humans; and second, to translate intentions clearly to agents, minimizing ambiguity in the resulting program. Wait, wasn't that exactly what the waterfall process did, with its emphasis on upfront specification? The very approach that Scrum later challenged? Waterfall emphasized upfront specifications to reduce ambiguity in execution. In the AI-driven era, we're seeing a similar need, but not for static specs. Instead, we need executable intent: interpretable, testable and traceable descriptions that replace the role of traditional source code. When, in the near future, code can be generated in minutes from a sprint backlog based on new specifications, the purpose of sprint cadence will change dramatically. It will no longer govern the 'time to write code,' but rather the 'time to think, align and evaluate.' Tools The plethora of prompt-driven coding tools appearing each month puzzles many engineering leaders. Evaluating the available tools for specific project needs alone could require a dedicated team working full time on just this activity. Then comes the build versus buy question: Can universal, publicly available tools like Cursor, Windsurf, Lovable, Devin and others be effective in a specific project environment based on X, Y and Z technologies? Or is it better to build custom agents tailored to project needs using agentic frameworks such as Claude Code, OpenAI Codex or Gemini CLI? Only time will tell which approach will prevail, but one trend we can already observe is that prompt engineering (the core of vibe coding) is giving way to context engineering, which promotes a more systematic approach to feeding LLMs with complete and relevant information. While some companies are already experimenting with the context engineering approach alongside spec-driven development for their in-house agents, we can expect such tools to become available to a broader market soon, with being a good example. Sure, bringing in context and project specifics requires much more effort than simply installing an IDE. But that's the point with humans, too—think of it as onboarding a new team member who doesn't drink eat pizza. The Future Of Software Development Starts With Redefinition Vibe coding is uncovering the need for a systemic shift in how we build software. As agentic AI becomes more capable, organizations must move beyond the novelty of agentic engineering and embrace it as a disciplined framework. This means rethinking team composition, adapting processes to accelerate alignment and evaluation and choosing tools not just for output, but for orchestration. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

Tesla shareholder group urges probe, ‘appropriate remedial action' from Nasdaq over Elon Musk's $29 billion pay package
Tesla shareholder group urges probe, ‘appropriate remedial action' from Nasdaq over Elon Musk's $29 billion pay package

Yahoo

time17 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Tesla shareholder group urges probe, ‘appropriate remedial action' from Nasdaq over Elon Musk's $29 billion pay package

In the latest twist in a long-running battle over Elon Musk's compensation at Tesla, the SOC Investment Group has requested that Nasdaq formally investigate 'and take appropriate remedial action' against Tesla for its recent $29 billion equity grant to the CEO. In a letter to Nasdaq, the group raised concerns about compliance with executive compensation rules and shareholder transparency. The SOC Group, formerly known as the CtW Investment Group, works with pension funds sponsored by a coalition of unions representing over 2 million members; many of those funds are Tesla investors. In a letter dated Aug. 19, 2025, addressed to Erik Wittman, deputy general counsel and head of enforcement at Nasdaq, SOC expressed 'serious concerns' about Musk's new compensation package. Specifically, SOC said it was concerned that Tesla's board circumvented Nasdaq listing rules when awarding Musk a '2025 CEO Interim Award,' disclosed earlier this month. The group claims this equity award should have required a shareholder vote, as stipulated under Nasdaq's rules, given that it materially amended compensation plans. Tesla's board approved Musk's new equity package under the company's 2019 Equity Incentive Plan, largely as compensation for his previously awarded—and overturned—$56 billion options package from 2018, known as the '2018 CEO Performance Award.' That older award was (twice) overturned by the Delaware Chancery Court owing to questions regarding board independence—a decision currently being appealed at the Delaware Supreme Court. Fortune's Shawn Tully reported that the new package will only apply if Musk and Tesla lose on appeal in Delaware. He also noted that unlike with the $56 billion award, the newer $29 billion award includes restrictions that protect shareholders: The shares vest on the second anniversary of the grant, or early August 2027, only if Musk serves for the entire period as CEO or chief of product development or operations. Musk can't sell any of those vested shares until five years later, or on Aug. 3, 2030. Fortune's Amanda Gerut reported that, such restrictions notwithstanding, the package lacks hard performance targets for Musk. Brian Dunn, director of the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University, told Fortune that experts sometimes refer to these as 'fog-the-mirror grants.' In other words: 'If you're around and have enough breath left in you to fog the mirror, you get them.' The objections lobbied by SOC Investment Group in its letter have nothing to do with either feature of the grants. The group argues that the Tesla board dodged shareholder approval for the package, in contravention of Nasdaq listing policy. Tejal Patel, executive director of the SOC Investment Group, told Fortune in an interview that the 'real issue is the fact that the original plan … was pretty clear in the disclosures that the company did not intend to include Elon Musk in that plan.' Acknowledging that such issues are usually raised with the Securities and Exchange Commission, she added: 'Admittedly, this is the first time I've flagged something like this to Nasdaq, [and that's] because it was a very specific listing standard.' Her understanding of the Nasdaq standard is that 'this is exactly what it was designed to avoid.' Shareholders likely 'did not believe' they were voting to approve a new Musk package The SOC Investment Group emphasizes that when Tesla shareholders approved the 2019 Equity Incentive Plan, company disclosures explicitly excluded Musk from eligibility, stating that his compensation would be exclusively tied to the extraordinary 2018 award. 'When shareholders voted on the 2019 Plan it is likely that, based on the available disclosures and research, they did not believe they were voting on an equity plan that would cover compensation to Mr. Musk,' the SOC letter notes, 'precisely because of the 'truly extraordinary' nature of the 2018 CEO Performance Award.' The SOC letter also notes that Tesla's 2019 proxy statement repeated multiple times that the 2019 plan was not intended to cover awards to Musk. Furthermore, the letter mentions that major proxy advisory firms indicated that the 2018 CEO Performance Award was 'intended to be the sole means of compensation for Mr. Musk, relying on the Company's disclosures.' Therefore, SOC writes, the 2025 CEO Interim Award 'appears to expand the class of participants under the 2019 Plan in manner that would be sufficiently material to require a separate shareholder vote.' The letter also warns that Tesla's board has indicated further interim awards could follow, potentially bypassing shareholder votes while the Delaware case, the so-called Tornetta litigation, is pending. The SOC letter urges Nasdaq to act to 'restore 'the rightful balance between shareholder and management's interests,'' prevent dilution, and ensure executive compensation transparency. SOC has 'real concerns over director independence,' Patel told Fortune. 'This is sort of the outcome of having a board that is not independent.' She said her group is concerned with issues over a lack of director independence and the juggling of responsibilities by Elon Musk, and matters have 'come to a head in the last several months.' This timeline overlaps with Musk's brief engagement as a special advisor to the White House, including extensive involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The new compensation plan, if anything, 'was an opportunity for the board to get Musk to focus on Tesla, and instead' they've arrived at this package, she said. She also noted that the conditions under which Musk would receive the same pay, even if he was a chief of product development or operations, is 'pretty unheard-of.' A vocal, active shareholder SOC Investment Group has a long and active history of engagement with Tesla, focusing on issues such as executive compensation, governance, board independence, and labor rights. The group has repeatedly opposed large pay packages for Musk—including leading campaigns to encourage shareholders to vote against Musk's $56 billion option award and calling for votes against related awards, especially when it believed proper shareholder approval procedures were circumvented or governance standards were not met. The group has also urged Tesla shareholders to vote against the reelection of certain directors, such as Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch, citing concerns about lack of board independence from Elon Musk and alignment with shareholders' interests. Similar to its current letter to Nasdaq, it has requested investigations by regulators into Tesla's governance practices, arguing that the company's board favors Musk's interests over those of public shareholders. For example, the group asked the SEC to probe Tesla's plan to shrink its board in 2022. The group has also joined with other investors in co-filing shareholder resolutions calling for Tesla to adopt comprehensive labor rights policies, including noninterference with worker organizing and compliance with global labor standards. SOC has been involved in webinars and resolutions highlighting risks related to Tesla's approach to unions and labor issues across several countries. Tesla has not publicly responded to the letter and did not immediately respond to Fortune's request for comment. For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio

82-year-old CEO grew a $7.8 billion fortune from company shares—now she's selling stock to charity and signed Bill Gates' pledge to give away 99%
82-year-old CEO grew a $7.8 billion fortune from company shares—now she's selling stock to charity and signed Bill Gates' pledge to give away 99%

Yahoo

time18 hours ago

  • Yahoo

82-year-old CEO grew a $7.8 billion fortune from company shares—now she's selling stock to charity and signed Bill Gates' pledge to give away 99%

The 82-year-old CEO of Epic Systems, Judy Faulkner, boasts a $7.8 billion fortune from owning 43% of the tech company—yet says she's 'never cashed a single share' for herself. The Silent Generation leader, who has signed Bill Gates' Giving Pledge, instead pours the profits from selling her nonvoting shares into charity. Her unconventionality bleeds into her leadership, too, as Faulkner holds monthly 'work church' meetings, complete with grammar lessons, inside her themed office buildings. CEOs with major controlling stakes in their billion-dollar companies have the power to make themselves richer and richer, but one 82-year-old tech leader isn't cashing in for herself. Judy Faulkner, the CEO of Epic Systems, has been selling her nonvoting shares back to the company—and redirecting the profits elsewhere. 'I've never cashed a single share for myself,' Faulkner recently told CNBC. On paper, Faulkner is worth $7.8 billion, thanks to her 43% stake in Epic. The health software firm is one of the largest private tech players in the U.S., pulling in $5.7 billion in annual revenue. But the CEO, a member of the Silent Generation, isn't looking to grow her nest egg. In fact, she's trying to get rid of it. In 2015, Faulkner signed the Giving Pledge (a philanthropic organization helmed by Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates) and dedicated to give away 99% of her wealth to charitable causes. The Epic leader told CNBC she is pouring the profits from her stock sales to Roots & Wings, a family foundation she launched with her husband that provides grants to nonprofits that support low-income children and families. In 2020, Roots & Wings granted $15 million to 115 organizations around the U.S. focused on the health, education, and well-being of families, and last year Faulkner's foundation estimated it would give $67 million to 305 organizations, according to Forbes. But the Epic CEO is determined to off-load more of her wealth faster, steadily increasing giving rates until Roots & Wings reaches its goal of $100 million every year as early as 2027. To manage the massive outflow of her money from selling Epic shares, Faulkner set up a trust to govern the stock sell-back process in order to not destabilize the company. Only nine of the 256 billionaires who signed the Giving Pledge are actually following through with their promise. Fortune reached out to Epic Systems for comment. Monthly 'work church' meetings and grammar lessons in themed Epic buildings While billionaire interest in signing the Giving Pledge has waned in recent years as many CEOs, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, hoard their fortunes, Faulkner is marching to the beat of her own drum. And that's not the only way she's defying conventional leadership in the tech world. The CEO described as a 'female cross between Bill Gates and Willy Wonka' by UMass Memorial Health leader Eric Dickson is bringing play and grammar lessons to her 14,000 employees. Epic Systems' massive 1,670-acre campus in Wisconsin is nothing like the futuristic or modern headquarters of other billion-dollar Silicon Valley tech companies. Each of the 28 buildings on the company's sprawling campus has a fantastical theme, ranging from The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland to the Harry Potter franchise. They're then grouped into mini campuses, including Prairie Campus, Wizards Academy, and Storybook Campus, with the offices designed by architecture business Cuningham, which also worked on the Disney theme parks. The grounds are adorned with a metal wizard standing guard of a castle, chocolate chips leading to a fake chocolate factory, and a hanging bridge that leads to a tree house. And inside, the rooms are filled with tchotchkes and paintings that Epic employees help source with Faulkner at local arts fairs. And once a month inside Epic's underground auditorium, called Deep Space, the business holds a mandatory staff meeting. According to CNBC, some employees jokingly call the get-together 'work church,' when executives run through Epic's business news and targets. But Faulkner also likes to throw a twist in the typical boring all-hands meeting by having a grammar lesson, teaching language lessons like when to use 'who' or 'whom.' Other companies with unique offices and unconventional meeting philosophies Epic Systems isn't the only company with an office setup unlike most others. Nonprofit health care provider Wellstar Health System doesn't try to keep workers happy with Ping-Pong tables and beer on tap. The Fortune 500 company's offices include 'wellness rooms,' complete with massage chairs, relaxing music, and healthy snacks to keep its 28,000 workers happy. The offerings have proved popular with employees, as turnover fell by 10% in 2024. Understood, a nonprofit that provides resources to people and families who are neurodivergent, designed its office specifically for the employees who work there and the clients it serves. Its space has something for everyone; one side of the floor has traditional white overhead lighting, while the other side has more muted yellow lighting. The office also has different zones with designated thermal controls, so employees can work in the temperatures they prefer. Also, staffers with hearing impairments were factored into the equation, as the floor has an assistive listening system that connects to their cochlear implants. And other CEOs don't like their meetings to be so buttoned-up, just like Faulkner. Amazon founder Bezos thrives in chaos; the tech leader said he only wants 'crisp documents' and 'messy meetings' that go in all different directions. Bezos encouraged his workers to show the 'ugly bits' of decision-making in these meetings—and despised the conversations being 'rehearsed' ahead of time. 'I'm very skeptical if the meetings are not messy,' Bezos said at the 2024 New York Times DealBook Summit. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store