[iterateoften]

For me cursor provides a much tighter feedback loop than Claude code. I can review revert iterate change models to get what I need. It feels sometimes Claude code is presented more as a yolo option where you put more trust on the agent about what it will produce.

I think the ability to change models is critical. Some models are better at designing frontend than others. Some are better at different programming languages, writing copy, blogs, etc.

I feel sabotaged if I can’t switch the models easily to try the same prompt and context across all the frontier options

[cjonas]

Same. For actual productions app I'm typically reviewing the thinking messages and code changes as they happen to ensure it stays on the rails. I heavily use the "revert" to previous state so I can update the prompt with more accurate info that might have come out of the agents trial and error. I find that if I don't do this, the agent makes a mess that often doesn't get cleaned up on its way to the actually solution. Maybe a similar workflow is possible with Claude Code...

[andai]

Yeah, autonomy has the cost of your mental model getting desynchronized. You either follow along interactively or spend time catching up later.

[FuckButtons]

You can ask Claude to work with you step by step and use /rewind. It only shows the diff though, which, hides some of the problem. Since diffs can seem fine in isolation, but when viewed in context can have obvious issues.