Is Claude Code better than Cursor?

For agentic workflows, yes. Claude Code runs in the terminal — independent of your editor — and handles multi-step tasks across a full codebase better than Cursor. It follows project instructions via AGENTS.md, supports skills for repeatable workflows, and runs parallel sessions in tmux. Cursor is better for tab completion and inline diffs if you prefer staying in VS Code.

Can you use Claude Code and Codex together?

I do this daily. I use Claude Code for primary implementation and Codex as a reviewer. Different models catch different issues. They share the same AGENTS.md, so the code they produce follows the same conventions regardless of which agent wrote it.

What is the best AI coding agent for a monorepo?

Claude Code handles monorepos best. It reads project structure quickly, understands path aliases across packages, and coordinates multi-step tasks across frontend, backend, and shared code. Droid is a close second with its spec mode for planning complex cross-package changes.

Is Cursor or Claude Code better for experienced developers?

Claude Code. If you work agentically — directing agents rather than writing code yourself — Claude Code gives you scripting, composability, and parallel sessions that Cursor can't match. Cursor is better if you still write most of your code and want smart tab completion.

Claude Code vs Cursor vs Codex: Which AI Agent Should You Use?

I use Claude Code, Droid, and Codex daily across all my projects. I also ship a SaaS starter kit — Stacknaut — that comes with an AGENTS.md pre-configured for coding agents.

These are practical daily-use observations from working with all three agents on production codebases with skills, project instructions, and defined conventions.

Claude Code

Claude Code is the most capable agent I use for working with a structured codebase. It reads CLAUDE.md (which I point to AGENTS.md via @AGENTS.md) at session start and follows instructions consistently.

What it does well:

Follows AGENTS.md conventions reliably — coding style, commit format, tool preferences
Reads and understands project structure quickly. Greps for patterns, reads relevant files, builds a mental map
Handles multi-step tasks well — “add a new API endpoint with tests, types, and a frontend page” works in a single prompt
Git integration is solid — commits, branches, diffs
Skills work naturally. Trigger a skill, the prompt gets injected, the agent follows it

Where it struggles:

Context window fills up fast on large codebases. Long sessions degrade. I start fresh sessions often
Sometimes over-reads files — pulls in more context than needed, burning through the window
Can be cautious about running commands, asking for approval when I’d prefer it just goes ahead. I use --dangerously-skip-permissions for trusted projects. I used to route Claude Max through Droid via CLIProxyAPI partly because Droid has a stronger permission system — but Anthropic has since restricted Claude Max use with third-party tools

With a structured codebase: Claude Code handles Stacknaut’s monorepo structure (frontend/backend/shared) naturally. It understands the path aliases, knows to run type-check in both packages, and follows the Drizzle ORM patterns without me repeating the rules. The pre-configured AGENTS.md means the first session on a new project based on Stacknaut is already productive — no warmup needed.

Codex

Codex is OpenAI’s open source agent. I use it for reviewing code that Claude Code wrote, bug fixing, and tackling tasks where I want a different perspective.

What it does well:

Fast for targeted tasks. “Review this file for issues” or “refactor this function” — Codex is snappy
Good at catching things other agents missed. Different model, different blind spots
Reads AGENTS.md and follows basic conventions
The sandbox is a nice safety net — commands run in an isolated environment by default
Open source, so I can see exactly what it’s doing

Where it struggles:

Less capable at multi-step agentic workflows than Claude Code. It handles simpler task chains better than complex ones
Skills work but less polished than Droid and Claude Code — I share skills across all three, though Codex sometimes needs more nudging to follow them
The sandbox, while safe, sometimes prevents it from doing things I want — accessing the network, running the dev server, interacting with Docker

With a structured codebase: Codex works well for targeted edits within Stacknaut — fixing a bug, adding a field, updating a component. For bigger tasks like “add a new billing plan with Stripe integration across frontend, backend, and shared types,” I reach for Claude Code. Codex tends to need more prompting to coordinate across a monorepo.

Cursor

Cursor is the best IDE-embedded agent, but I keep coming back to terminal agents.

What it does well:

Tab completion is genuinely good for small, predictive edits while you’re actively writing code
Inline diffs are nice to review — you see the changes in context without switching tools
Reads project rules (.cursor/rules, AGENTS.md) and follows conventions
The Composer/Agent mode handles multi-file edits within the IDE
Background agents and Bugbot for automated tasks

Where it struggles:

Primarily an editor experience. Cursor has a CLI and background agents now, but the core workflow is still VS Code. I use WebStorm and Neovim — Cursor means giving those up
Parallel sessions are less natural. Background agents help, but with terminal agents I run 3-5 in tmux and coordinate between them. That’s harder to replicate in an editor
Project rules work for conventions, but there’s no skills system like Claude Code or Droid have — small, portable prompts I can trigger on demand and share across agents

With a structured codebase: Cursor handles a starter kit fine for single-file edits. Where it falls short is the agentic workflow I actually use — having an agent autonomously implement a feature across the monorepo, run tests, check types, fix errors, and commit. That workflow needs a terminal agent that can loop independently.

Droid

Droid was my primary agent. It reads both AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md, supports skills and custom droids, and has good context management.

What it does well:

Model-agnostic — I can use different models for different tasks
Skills and custom droids work well for repeatable workflows. I have droids for review, exploration, and specific project tasks
Spec mode lets me plan before coding — useful for complex features where I want to review the approach before the agent starts writing
Sub-agents via the Task tool — delegate subtasks to separate instances
Good at following AGENTS.md conventions, especially with project-specific custom droids

Where it struggles:

Newer than Claude Code, so the ecosystem and documentation are still growing
Some rough edges in session management compared to Claude Code

With a structured codebase: Droid works particularly well with Stacknaut because I can create project-specific droids that know the codebase deeply. A custom droid configured for “add a new API endpoint” knows the exact file patterns, the route structure, the type definitions, and the test setup. It goes beyond what AGENTS.md alone provides.

How I Actually Use Them Together

I don’t pick one agent. I use all three:

Claude Code for primary development — implementing features, working through complex tasks, using skills for commit/review/deploy workflows
Droid for an alternative perspective and when I want spec mode or custom droids for specific workflows
Codex for review — I have it check what the other agents wrote. Different model catches different issues

The shared AGENTS.md means all three agents follow the same conventions. The code they produce is consistent regardless of which agent wrote it. That’s the whole point of having project instructions — it normalizes the output across agents.

Which Should You Pick?

If you’re working with a structured codebase — starter kit or not — start with Claude Code. It’s the most capable, most polished, and the AGENTS.md support is mature.

Add Codex as a reviewer. Having a second agent review the first agent’s work is one of the most reliable quality improvements I’ve found.

If you want skills and custom agents, try Droid. Project-specific droids that know your exact patterns go beyond what AGENTS.md alone provides.

Cursor is fine if you prefer staying in VS Code. It’ll follow your project conventions. But you’ll miss the composability and parallel sessions of terminal agents.