The "golden" end state of coding agents is that you give it a Feature Request (EG Jira ticket), and it gives you a PR to review and give feedback on. Cursor, windsurf, etc, are dead ends in that sense as they are local editors, and can not be in CI.
If you are tooling your codebase for optimal AI usage (Rules, MCP, etc), you should target a technology that can bridge the gap to headless usage. The fact Claude Code can trivially be used as part of automation through the tools means it's now the default way I thinking about coding agents (Codex, the npm package, is the same).
Disclaimer, I focus on helping companies tool their codebases for optimal agent usage, so I might have a bias here to easily configurable tools.
That's what I want and look forward one day
I hate using voice for anything. I hate getting voice messages, I hate creating them. I get cold sweats just thinking about having to direct 10 AI Agents via voice. Just give me a keyboard and a bunch of screens, thanks.
I'm not saying "ban propietary LLMs", I'm saying: hackers (the ones that used to read sites like this) should have as their main tools free and open source ones.
Yes, because hardware and electricity aren't free.
I literally DO pay for every command. I just don't get an itemized bill so there's no transparency about it. Instead, I made some lump-sum hardware payment which is amortized over the total usage I get out of it, plus some marginal increase in my monthly electric bill when I use it.
I was doing this with Cursor and MCPs. Got about a full day of this before I was rate limited and dropped to the slowest, dumbest model. I’ve done it with Claude too and quickly exhaust my rate limits. And the PRs are only “good to go” about 25% of the time, and it’s often faster to just do it right than find out where the AI screwed up.
I see your point but in the other hand how depressing to be left only with the most soul crushing part of software entering - the Jira ticket.
I understand the craft of code itself is what some people love though!
The real threats to our profession are things like climate change, extreme wealth concentration, political instability, cultural regression and so on. It's the stuff that software stands on that one should worry about, not the stuff that it builds towards.
The current SOTA models can do some impressive things, in certain domains. But running a business is way more than generating JavaScript.
The way I see it, only some jobs will be impacted by generative AI in the near term. Not replaced, augmented.
Put the Aider CLI into a GitHub action that's triggered by an issue creation and you're good to go.
But it's 100% the same class of tool and the awesome part of the unixy model is hopefully agents can be substituted in for each other in your pipeline for whichever one is better for the usecase, just like models are interoperable.
Like Anthropic and most big tech companies, they don't want to show off the best until they need to. They used to stockpile some cool features, and they have time to think about their strategy. But now I feel like they are in a rush to show off everything and I'm worried whether the management has time to think about the big picture.
*I have a few more safety/scalability changes to make but expecting public launch in a few weeks!
Isn’t that effectively the promise of the most recently released OpenAI codex?
From the reviews I’ve been able to find so far though, quality of output is ehh.
I bias a bit to wanting the agent to be a pluggable component into a flow I own, rather than a platform in a box.
It'll be interesting to see where the different value props/use cases of a Delvin/v0 vs a Codex Cloud vs Claude Code/Codex CLI vs Cursor land.
However I feel what we really need is to have an open source version of it where you can pass any model and also you can compare different models answers.
(Aider and other alternatives really doesn't feel as good to use as Claude Code)
I know this is not what anthropic would want to do as it removes their moat, but as a consumer I just want the best model and not be tied to an ecosystem. (Which I imagine is the largest fear of LLM model providers)
It's still under development but looks promising.
What does Claude Code do better than Aider?
[0] https://aider.chat/docs/scripting.html
[1] https://aider.chat/docs/recordings/tree-sitter-language-pack...
I don't really want it committing and stuff, i mostly like the UX of Claude Code. Thoughts?
Add a file to your repo and you can talk to any model via issues.
you can skim the transcript but some personal highlights:
- anthropic employees, with unlimited claude, average to $6/day of usage
- headless claude code as a "linux" utility that you use everywhere in CI is pretty compelling
- claude code as a user extensible platform
- future roadmap of claude code: sandboxing, branching, planning
- sonnet 3.7 as a persistent, agentic model
From the link:
"Apparently, there are some engineers inside of Anthropic that have spent >$1,000 in one day!"
The question is what is the P50, P75, and P95 spend per employee?
† simonw, gwern
i do feel like SNR * quantity could be higher, but its still a challenge to even keep it where it is today. my work life balance/stress levels aren't the best and everyone expects everything from me.
The only possible way for this to be a successful offering is if we have just now reached a plateau of model effectiveness and all foundation models will now trend towards having almost identical performance and capabilities, with integrators choosing based on small niceties, like having a familiar SDK.
At this point Claude Code is a software differentiator in the agent coding space.
I am building things related to AI code assistants - we were hacking ways to integrate Claude Code - it was the first thing we wanted to build around.
It's too early to care about lock in.
Need the best, will only build around the best.
This SDK currently supports only command line usage. Isn't that just what we already had?
I don't understand what's actually new here. What am I missing?
(I am not affiliated with this project, just a user.)
Can somebody please tell me what software product or service doesn’t compete with general intelligence?
Imagine selling intelligence with a legal term that, under strict interpretation, says you’re not allowed to use it for anything.
Is it so vague it’s unenforceable?
How do we own the output if we can’t use it to compete with a general intelligence?
Is it just a “lol nerd no one cares about the legal terms” thing? If no one cares then why would they have a blanket prohibition on using the service ?
We’re supposed to accept liability to lose a lawsuit just to accept their slop? So many questions
As it only accepts an API key as far as I can tell.
[0]: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/github-action...
I think Bard (lol) and Gemini got a late start and so lots of folks dismissed it but I feel like they've fully caught up. Definitely excited to see what Gemini 3 vs GPT-5 vs Claude 4 looks like!
I suspect that I experience some performance throttling with Gemini 2.5 in my Windsurf setup because it's just not as good as anecdotal reports by others, and benchmarks.
I also seem to run up against a kind of LLM laziness sometimes when they seemingly can't be bothered to answer a challenging prompt ... a consequence of load balancing in action perhaps.
EDIT: Specifically: https://openrouter.ai/rankings/programming?view=week
Gemini 2.5 Flash on the other hand has excellent. I’ve started using it to rewrite whole files after talking the changes through with Claude, because it’s just so ridiculously fast (and dependable enough for applying already outlined changes).
The two work really well with Gemini as a planner and Claude Code as an executor.
The default planning/coding models are still Sonnet 3.7 for context size under 200k, but you can switch to Gemini with `\set-model gemini-preview`.
Works for a reasonable chunk of files say 5 to 10 that aren’t too big.
No doubt they’ll get to better file access.
Anyhow I’m quite happy to do the copy and paste because Geminis coding and debugging capability is far better than Claude.
I really like the idea of Claude Code but its rare that I fully spec out a feature on my first request and I can't see how it can be used for frontend features that require a lot of browser-centric iteration/debugging to get right.
If you (or anyone else reading this) wants to try out the upcoming beta give me a ping. (see profile.)
Honestly though, CLI tools for accessing LLMs (including piping content in and out of them) is such a clearly good idea I'm glad to see more tools implementing the pattern.
Then you can instrument through metaprogramming. For instance, an alert system could be:
"If the threshold goes over 1.0, contact the on-call person through their preferred method" - which may work ... maybe.
Or:
if any( "check_condition {x}", condition_set ): find_person("on call", right now).contact("preferred")
... the point is to divide everything up into small one-shots, parallelize them, use it as glue/api. Then you get composability. If you can get a framework for coroutines going then it's real game on. The final step is "needs based pulling" which is an inversion of mcp - contextual streams as event based sub-systems.
Things are still too slow for this to be not painful but that won't be the case forever.
Currently everything is linear. Doesn't have to be ... really doesn't.
