"Supervised" is the word that makes this honest - unsupervised vibe coding is how you get a confident pile of code that looks done and isn't, while supervised vibe coding (you stay in the loop, reviewing and steering) is where the speedup is actually real and safe. The supervision IS the quality control; remove it and you've just automated the production of plausible bugs faster.

The interesting question as these tools mature is: can the supervision itself be partly automated? A human reviewing every step doesn't scale, but deterministic gates (tests must pass, schema must validate, deploy must succeed) can do a chunk of the supervising so the human only intervenes on the judgment calls. That "automate the mechanical supervision, reserve humans for judgment" split is the core design of Moonshift (a multi-agent pipeline that ships a prompt to a deployed SaaS) - verification gates handle the "is it actually correct" checks so a build can be mostly autonomous but still trustworthy, ~$3 flat. Nice writeup, and the supervised framing is the responsible one. Where do you draw the supervision line on a weekend build - reviewing every change, or just checking the key load-bearing parts? That calibration is the whole skill.

"Supervised" is the key word that separates vibe-coding that ships from vibe-coding that bites. Unsupervised, the model produces plausible code and you find out it's wrong in prod; supervised, you're the verification layer catching it before it counts. The weekend-project framing is perfect for it: low stakes, fast feedback, you stay in the loop. The thing that scales this past weekends is automating the supervision itself, tests, build checks, a judge, so you're not the only gate. That's the core of how Moonshift ships. What did you find yourself supervising most, correctness or scope-creep?