Why we moved from Cursor to Claude Code
Cursor is a great AI editor. Our workflow shifted from in-editor assistance to delegating whole tasks to an agent, and that is where Claude Code fit better.
This is another “right tool for how we work” post, not a takedown. Cursor is a genuinely good AI editor and I still respect it. What changed for us was the shape of the workflow: we moved from AI that helps while you type to AI you hand a whole task, and Claude Code fit that shift better.
Two different models of AI coding
Cursor is built around the editor: inline completion, tab-to-accept, chat about the file you are in. It is excellent when you are the one driving and want fast help in the flow of typing. Claude Code is built around the agent: you describe a task, and it plans, edits across files, runs the commands, reads the output, and iterates. One augments your keystrokes; the other takes the wheel for a scoped piece of work. As our tasks got bigger and more repetitive across a monorepo, the second model started to win.
Delegating whole tasks, not lines
The turning point was noticing how much of our work is well-specified but tedious: wire a new GraphQL query through to a component, apply a design-system change across several apps, add tests to a module. That is not “autocomplete this line,” it is “do this task, verify it, and show me.” An agent that can plan, make the change, run the build and tests, and report back fits that far better than inline suggestions do.
Terminal-native fits our setup
Claude Code lives in the terminal, not in one specific fork of an editor. That matters for us because our work spans a monorepo, scripts, and CI, and I am not always sitting in the same IDE. An agent I can run wherever the code is, using the same tools I do (the shell, git, the test runner), slots into the setup we already have instead of asking me to move into a new home base.
Skills, subagents, and MCP
The bigger pull was the ecosystem around the agent. Reusable skills encode our workflow (plan, build with tests, review) so the agent follows a process instead of improvising. Subagents let it fan work out. And MCP connects it to the tools where our work lives, Linear and Figma and our analytics, so it acts with real context. I have written about those pieces on their own; together they make the agent a participant in the workflow rather than a clever text box.
What Cursor still does better
Credit where it is due. For pure in-editor speed, tab completion and quick single-file edits while you type, Cursor’s experience is hard to beat, and some people work best exactly that way. If your day is mostly heads-down typing with an assistant riding along, it is a great fit. Ours drifted toward delegation, and that is a different tool.
The takeaway
We did not switch because one tool is objectively better. We switched because our workflow changed. When most of what you want is “here is a task, go do it and prove it works,” an agent-first tool like Claude Code fits the hand better than an editor-first one. Match the tool to how you actually work, and revisit the choice when the way you work changes.