Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Pawel Jozefiak's avatar

This resonates deeply with me. The "micro apps" framing is perfect — I've been calling them "tiny tools" but the concept is identical. There's something liberating about building something that does exactly one thing well, without the baggage of thinking about scale, maintenance, or whether it fits into some larger architecture.

Your four-stage workflow mirrors what I've discovered through trial and error. The planning phase is where most people skip ahead, and it shows. I've found that spending even 10 minutes writing out what I actually want — not how to build it, just what it should do — dramatically changes the quality of what the AI produces. It's almost like the act of articulating the problem clarifies it for yourself first.

The iteration stage is where the real magic happens though. I built an AI agent (Wiz) using Claude Code, and the debugging conversations became almost collaborative. You describe what's wrong, the AI suggests fixes, you test, refine, repeat. It's a different rhythm than traditional debugging where you're alone with stack traces.

One thing I'd add: the emotional shift matters as much as the technical one. Building stopped feeling like a chore and started feeling like play again. I wrote about this shift and compared some of the tools that enabled it: https://thoughts.jock.pl/p/cursor-vs-vibe-coding-tools-2025

Looking forward to Part II.

Manas Moon's avatar

Damn, this was a solid read! 🔥

The whole idea of micro apps just makes so much sense—The Plan > Prototype > Iterate > Production approach is such a smooth way to think about it, and that "Chat first, code later" tip? 💡 Definitely a game-changer.

Also, love how you didn’t just stop at theory but actually showed a real workflow with AI.

Got me thinking—what’s one micro app you’ve built that completely changed how you work?

Excited for Part II! 🚀

No posts

Ready for more?