Views: 204
Summary – Speeding up production with vibe coding exposes teams to invisible technical debt that slows innovation, increases costs, and raises security risks. By leveraging SonarQube metrics, measured test coverage, a risk-scored technical backlog, and a unified CI/CD- and monitoring-powered dashboard, teams can continuously quantify, prioritize, and track their technical debt. Solution: establish agile governance with dedicated AI reviews, tracking rituals, and a prompt registry to ensure development quality, maintainability, and speed.
Technical debt results from trade-offs made to accelerate feature launches, but it can hamper innovation and inflate long-term costs. With the growing power of generative AI tools for coding (vibe coding), teams gain responsiveness while risking the accumulation of hidden debt.
IT decision-makers must adopt a measured approach based on rigorous metrics, appropriate tools, and strong team practices. This article explains how to quantify, prioritize, and strategically address technical debt, and how to integrate AI safeguards to balance speed and quality in a modern development context.
Measuring Technical Debt and Vibe Coding
Technical debt is not just an accounting balance: it’s a strategic lever. It’s measured by precise indicators and must align with business objectives.
Definition and Scope of Technical Debt
Technical debt encompasses all development choices that facilitate rapid production deployment at the expense of code quality and maintainability. It can take the form of spaghetti code, ad hoc workarounds, or missing tests, accumulating with every release.
More than a simple maintenance cost, this debt represents a risk to feature evolution, service reliability, and security. It emerges whenever test coverage, documentation or best refactoring practices are sacrificed to meet a deadline.
For an executive or IT manager, technical debt reflects a trade-off that must be made explicit and integrated into the governance plan, with a quantified impact on budgets and time-to-market.
Main Metrics to Quantify Debt
SonarQube stands out as a benchmark for assessing code quality: cyclomatic complexity, duplications, vulnerabilities, and test coverage. These indicators generate a debt score that feeds into detailed reporting.
Unit and integration test coverage, often measured via JaCoCo or Istanbul, indicates the percentage of code executed during regression testing. A minimum threshold of 80% is generally recommended to limit regressions.
The technical backlog, integrated into your agile tool (Jira, Azure DevOps), allows you to quantify debt-related tickets and weight them according to a “risk score.” This mechanism helps the Product Owner balance new features against cleanup tasks.
Concrete Example of Measurement in an Industrial SME
An SME specializing in internal process management initiated a code audit with SonarQube to assess its technical footprint. The platform showed a 15% duplication rate and 55% test coverage, revealing a high risk of regressions.
This measurement highlighted the importance of allocating 20% of the sprint backlog to refactoring tickets and the setup of a CI/CD pipeline. Weekly metric reviews reduced the debt by 30% in six months.
This example illustrates how a structured approach, based on open source tools, transforms invisible debt into actionable metrics for decision-makers.
The Risks of Hidden Debt Amplified by Generative AI
Vibe coding multiplies code creation speed but often conceals strategic debt. AI prompts and suggestions require systematic review to avoid introducing vulnerabilities.
The Nature of Automatic Shortcuts
By default, generative models prioritize conciseness and speed. They can produce functional code but often overlook the overall architecture and team patterns. Generated solutions frequently lack integrated tests and business exception handling.
This “black box” code blends into the existing base without clearly identified dependencies. Over time, it creates fragile points and undocumented layers, generating underlying technical debt.
Reusing snippets from prompts without contextual adaptation also exposes you to security and compatibility risks, especially during framework or library updates.
Detecting and Analyzing AI Debt
Static analysis tools must be configured to scan areas where vibe coding is used. It’s essential to integrate custom rules (security hotspots, design pattern standards) to detect lines generated without compliance to internal standards.
Assigning a “cleanup specialist” on the team ensures a dedicated role for reviewing AI-related pull requests. This person validates architectural consistency, test coverage, and adherence to security guidelines.
At the same time, creating a coding prompts registry tracks AI queries used and correlates them with technical backlog tickets. This system enhances traceability and auditability of generated code.
Illustration by a Technology Startup Project
A startup adopted a vibe coding tool to accelerate the development of a critical feature. Without systematic review, the generated module used outdated library versions, exposing an RCE vulnerability.
This flaw, detected during integration testing, cost a weekend of fixes and three days of roadmap delay. The incident underscored the importance of an AI safeguard and a dedicated metric for dependency evolution.
The case shows that controlled use of vibe coding must be complemented by rigorous governance, aligned with DevSecOps practices and open source standards.
Edana: strategic digital partner in Switzerland
We support companies and organizations in their digital transformation
Tools and Metrics to Monitor and Prioritize Your Technical Debt
Without proper management, technical debt becomes unmanageable and out of control. Targeted tools and risk indicators guide strategic decisions.
Integrated Monitoring Platform
A unified dashboard (Grafana, Kibana) collects key metrics from SonarQube, Jenkins, and coverage tests. It allows visualization of debt score evolution by component and sprint.
This real-time monitoring alerts you to any drift (increased complexity, decreased test coverage) and automatically triggers technical backlog tickets.
The direct link between alerts and user stories simplifies prioritization during planning, offering a consolidated view of business risks and associated debts.
Risk Score and Prioritization
Each component is given a risk score based on two axes: business impact (traffic, conversion) and exposure (security, stability). This matrix directs technology investment decisions.
The Product Owner can then trade off adding a new feature against fixing a security hotspot or a high-complexity area.
A business rule can, for example, block feature integration until a critical module’s debt score falls below a predefined threshold.
Example of Recovery at an E-Commerce Player
An e-commerce player implemented a single dashboard integrating SonarQube, GitLab CI, and BDD test reporting. The metrics revealed a critical bottleneck in an authentication module, with a risk of failure at each update.
Prioritization led to a two-month refactoring plan, reorganizing the code into microservices and introducing TDD. Result: the module’s technical debt dropped by 70% without halting releases.
This case demonstrates that combining open source tools with agile governance ensures fine-grained control of technical debt and better responsiveness to business needs.
Team Best Practices and AI Safeguards for Balanced Development
Success relies on a collaborative culture, tailored rituals, and AI oversight. Teams combine performance and quality through shared governance.
Agile Rituals and Technical Reviews
At the heart of Scrum methodology, a monthly technical debt review involves IT leadership, architects, and the Product Owner. Each identified hotspot is reclassified and scheduled based on its risk score.
Code reviews (peer review) now include a segment dedicated to AI suggestions, validating style, security, and modularity guidelines.
Lastly, daily stand-ups include a “vibe coding” checkpoint to share best practices for prompts and feedback on the quality of generated code.
Ongoing Training and Living Documentation
Teams attend regular workshops on AI tools (Cursor, Copilot) and refactoring methodologies. These sessions combine theory and hands-on exercises on real code.
A living documentation, stored in an internal wiki, records validated patterns, effective prompts, and anti-patterns to avoid. It’s updated after each sprint to reflect technical evolutions.
This approach fosters adoption of common standards and reduces gaps between junior and senior developers.
Continuous Control and External Audits
In addition to internal reviews, a quarterly external audit assesses compliance with quality, security, and open source standards. The goal is to ensure there’s no “secret sauce” proprietary code misaligned with the hybrid architecture.
Automated penetration tests and vulnerability scans from CI/CD pipelines detect potential flaws introduced by vibe coding.
Turn Your Technical Debt into a Competitive Advantage
When measured, prioritized, and addressed rigorously, technical debt stops being a roadblock and becomes a lever for innovation. By combining open source tools (SonarQube, CI/CD), structured risk metrics, and agile governance, you finely manage your debt while accelerating delivery.
Integrating AI safeguards and dedicated rituals ensures quality and security even in an AI-assisted development context.
Regardless of your maturity level, our experts are available to guide you in implementing these practices, tailored to your business context and performance and longevity objectives.
