<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: David vonThenen</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by David vonThenen (@dvonthenen).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/dvonthenen</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/dvonthenen"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>When AI Breaks the Contract: The Hidden Risk of Vibe-Coded SDKs</title>
      <dc:creator>David vonThenen</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 17:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/dvonthenen/when-ai-breaks-the-contract-the-hidden-risk-of-vibe-coded-sdks-ggo</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/dvonthenen/when-ai-breaks-the-contract-the-hidden-risk-of-vibe-coded-sdks-ggo</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;A lot of AI-generated code works right up until the moment you upgrade the SDK and your production system starts reenacting a disaster recovery drill. This post looks at a growing problem in modern SDK development: AI tools generating interface changes that quietly break backward compatibility. The code compiles. The tests pass. And somewhere downstream, another developer loses a weekend because a constructor, response shape, or validation rule changed without anyone treating it like the contract it was.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2Fan6r8h3lnm3n2fr4zw7h.png" class="article-body-image-wrapper"&gt;&lt;img src="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2Fan6r8h3lnm3n2fr4zw7h.png" alt=" " width="800" height="462"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;AI coding assistants are getting better fast, and teams are shipping code faster than ever. But speed is exposing a deeper issue: maintaining APIs and SDKs requires judgment, long-term thinking, and an understanding of how real users depend on stability. That matters even more now as companies lean harder into agentic workflows, autonomous coding systems, and AI-generated pull requests. If you've ever had an SDK update break your project, force a rewrite, or turn a "minor upgrade" into a migration project, this one will feel painfully familiar.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Check out the first comment for the blog post!&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>api</category>
      <category>softwareengineering</category>
      <category>vibecoding</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
