Overview
The speaker compares Claude Code and Cursor as AI coding agents, discusses hands-on experience using Claude Code within Cursor, and explores best practices for effective agentic coding workflows in modern software development.
Claude Code vs. Cursor: Interface and Workflow
- Evaluates whether terminal-based Claude Code is superior to Cursor’s UI for agent interaction and code review.
- Details using Claude Code inside Cursor, switching between terminal and dedicated agent windows.
- Finds terminal integration flexible, but prefers Cursor’s chat UI for granular code review and approval.
- Notes Cursor requires manual approval for each file change, while Claude Code allows more automated, broad changes.
Performance and Capabilities Comparison
- Both tools access Claude’s top models, Sonnet and Opus, with no significant difference in model performance based on interface.
- Claude Code is more effective for large, multi-file tasks, while Cursor excels for smaller, tightly scoped fixes and collaborative frontend work.
- Background agents and task delegation are increasingly important; Claude Code is seen as stronger for autonomous, complex task execution.
Key Features and Integrations
- Claude Code runs anywhere via terminal, integrating with Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, and more.
- Direct MCP integration allows syncing with workflow tools like Linear for issue tracking and task management.
- Custom slash commands and persistent memory files (claw.md) enable tailored agent behavior and reusable workflows.
- GitHub Actions integration allows Claude Code to operate on remote PRs and tasks, extending agent automation beyond local environments.
Planning and Best Practices
- “Plan mode” is critical: users should prompt Claude Code to draft a detailed plan before starting major features.
- Using keywords like “think hard” or “ultrathink” enhances plan depth and thoughtfulness.
- Plans should be explicit, as agents require clear instructions to avoid missing implementation details.
- Reviewing and iterating plans with the agent is essential to aligning expectations before execution.
Limitations and Areas for Improvement
- Multitasking is challenging; running multiple instances risks git conflicts unless carefully managed (work trees recommended).
- Claude Code’s terminal UI is less effective for detailed, line-by-line code review compared to Cursor’s interface.
- Some styling and front-end tweaks may require manual adjustments post-agent execution.
- Explicit details must be included in agent plans, as agents don’t infer implicit workflow steps.
Evolving Role of Developers
- Software development is shifting from writing code to engineering and orchestrating agents that generate code.
- Most project code is now written by AI, but developers still intervene for design sensitivity and complex collaboration.
- Creating effective agent instructions and memory files is a key emerging skill.
Decisions
- Adopt planning phase as a standard practice before executing complex tasks with Claude Code or any agent.
- Use Claude Code for large, multi-file, autonomous tasks; use Cursor for collaborative, iterative frontend work.
Action Items
- TBD – Speaker: Explore and document advanced multitasking workflows with git work trees in Claude Code.
- TBD – Speaker: Refine memory files (claw.md) to provide more precise instructions for future agent tasks.