Comparing the Quality of Code Generated by Vibe Coding Tools

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16302v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:14:05 GMT
• Title: Comparing the Quality of Code Generated by Vibe Coding Tools
• Abstract summary: This study compares the structural quality of code produced by three widely adopted vibe coding tools.<n>We generate three independent projects per tool, totalling nine web applications, and submit them to static analysis with SonarQube.<n>Preliminary results show that the tools exhibit distinct qualitative profiles.
• Score: 6.254624232861127
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The use of AI agents for automatic code generation has become increasingly common in software development. However, concerns remain about the quality of the generated code, including aspects of maintainability, readability, and long-term evolution. This study compares the structural quality of code produced by three widely adopted vibe coding tools --- Lovable, v0, and Replit --- starting from a single generation prompt. We generate three independent projects per tool, totalling nine web applications, and submit them to static analysis with SonarQube. We collect metrics such as the number of issues, severity distribution, estimated remediation effort, cyclomatic and cognitive complexity, and code duplication. Preliminary results show that the tools exhibit distinct qualitative profiles: Lovable concentrates issues of lower severity but presents a substantially higher density of code smells per KLOC, while v0 and Replit produce more code with more aggressive severity profiles. These findings suggest that choosing between vibe coding tools involves structural trade-offs that go beyond perceived productivity.

Related papers

• How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding [5.271725890500162]
  We develop a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements.<n>Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement.<n>Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T05:34:47Z)
• Beyond Quantity: Trajectory Diversity Scaling for Code Agents [51.71414642763219]
  Trajectory Diversity Scaling is a data synthesis framework for code agents that scales performance through diversity rather than raw volume.<n> TDScaling integrates four innovations: (1) a Business Cluster mechanism that captures real-service logical dependencies; (2) a blueprint-driven multi-agent paradigm that enforces trajectory coherence; and (3) an adaptive evolution mechanism that steers toward long-tail scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T07:43:03Z)
• A Causal Perspective on Measuring, Explaining and Mitigating Smells in LLM-Generated Code [49.09545217453401]
  Propensity Smelly Score (PSC) is a metric that estimates the likelihood of generating particular smell types.<n>We identify how generation strategy, model size, model architecture and prompt formulation shape the structural properties of generated code.<n> PSC helps developers interpret model behavior and assess code quality, providing evidence that smell propensity signals can support human judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T19:18:28Z)
• Human-Written vs. AI-Generated Code: A Large-Scale Study of Defects, Vulnerabilities, and Complexity [4.478789600295493]
  We present a large-scale comparison of code authored by human developers and three state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., ChatGPT, DeepSeek-Coder, and Qwen-Coder.<n>Our evaluation spans over 500k code samples in two widely used languages, Python and Java, classifying defects via Orthogonal Defect Classification and security vulnerabilities using the Common Weaknession.<n>We find that AI-generated code is generally simpler and more prone to unused constructs and hardcoded, while human-written code exhibits greater structural complexity and a higher concentration of maintainability issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T13:51:28Z)
• CodeEvo: Interaction-Driven Synthesis of Code-centric Data through Hybrid and Iterative Feedback [21.627909324788597]
  Acquiring high-quality instruction-code pairs is essential for training Large Language Models.<n>We propose CodeEvo, a framework that synthesizes code data through iterative interactions between two LLM agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T16:12:51Z)
• CoQuIR: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Code Quality-Aware Information Retrieval [44.39462689088926]
  CoQuIR is the first large-scale, multilingual benchmark designed to evaluate quality-aware code retrieval.<n>CoQuIR provides fine-grained quality annotations for 42,725 queries and 134,907 code snippets in 11 programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T13:00:17Z)
• Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis Feedback [66.0854002147103]
  Code generation with large language models (LLMs) is increasingly adopted in production but fails to ensure code quality.<n>We propose REAL, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes LLMs to generate production-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T17:57:47Z)
• Is Compression Really Linear with Code Intelligence? [60.123628177110206]
  textitFormat Annealing is a lightweight, transparent training methodology designed to assess the intrinsic capabilities of pre-trained models equitably.<n>Our empirical results reveal a fundamental logarithmic relationship between measured code intelligence and bits-per-character (BPC)<n>Our work provides a more nuanced understanding of compression's role in developing code intelligence and contributes a robust evaluation framework in the code domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T16:59:14Z)
• Detecting Essence Code Clones via Information Theoretic Analysis [28.696542467142983]
  Code cloning involves replicating code fragments to save time but often at the expense of software maintainability and quality.<n>"essence clones" are a complex subtype of Type-3 clones characterized by sharing critical logic despite different peripheral codes.<n>Traditional techniques often fail to detect essence clones due to their syntactic focus.<n>We introduce ECScan, a novel detection tool that leverages information theory to assess the semantic importance of code lines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T15:23:40Z)
• Bridging LLM-Generated Code and Requirements: Reverse Generation technique and SBC Metric for Developer Insights [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel scoring mechanism called the SBC score.<n>It is based on a reverse generation technique that leverages the natural language generation capabilities of Large Language Models.<n>Unlike direct code analysis, our approach reconstructs system requirements from AI-generated code and compares them with the original specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T01:12:11Z)
• Codev-Bench: How Do LLMs Understand Developer-Centric Code Completion? [60.84912551069379]
  We present the Code-Development Benchmark (Codev-Bench), a fine-grained, real-world, repository-level, and developer-centric evaluation framework. Codev-Agent is an agent-based system that automates repository crawling, constructs execution environments, extracts dynamic calling chains from existing unit tests, and generates new test samples to avoid data leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T09:11:10Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [92.62952504133926]
  This study evaluated the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and six popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks.<n>We developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes and analyzed the root cause for common bug types.<n>We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.