With the benefit that you can also pull in people who don't like using VSCode such as people who use Jetbrains or terminal based code editors.

The IDE/editor is for me, the agent doesn't need it. That also means I am not forced to used whatever imperfect forked IDE the agent is implemented against.

I haven't found however if Cursor cli provides this kind of extension

https://www.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1mk8ks5/discussion_...

https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/llm-gateway#l...

https://docs.litellm.ai/docs/tutorials/claude_responses_api

Claude Code likes to add "attribution" in commit messages, which is just pure spam.

The whole agentic coding via CLI experience could be much improved by:

- Making it easy to see what command I last issued, without having to scroll up through reams of output hunting for context - Making it easy to spin up a proper sandbox to run sessions unattended - Etc.

Maybe for code generation, what we actually need is a code generator that is itself deterministic but uses AI, instead of AI that does code generation.

Why are we purposely creating CLI dialects?

Yesterday, I was writing about a way I found to pass the same guideline documents into Claude, Gemini, and Aider CLI-coders: https://github.com/sutt/agro/blob/master/docs/case-studies/a...

I guess having links to supplementary rules files is an option, but I'm not sure which agents (if any) would work well with that.

e.g. maybe for CURSOR.md you just want to provide context and best practices without any tool-calling context (because you've found it doesn't do a great job of tool-calling), while for CLAUDE.md (for use with Claude Code) you might want to specify tools that are available to it (because it does a great job with tool calling).

Probably best if you have an AGENT.md that applies to all, and then the tools can also ingest their particular flavor in addition, which (if anything is in conflict) would trump the baseline AGENT file.

---

    This project uses shared planning documents for collaboration with Claude Code. Please:

    1. First read and understand these files:

       - PLAN.md - current project roadmap and objectives

       - ARCHITECTURE.md - technical decisions and system design

       - TODO.md - current tasks and their status

       - DECISIONS.md - decision history with rationale

       - COLLABORATION.md - handoff notes from other tools

    2. Before making any significant changes, check these documents for:

       - Existing architectural decisions

       - Current sprint priorities

       - Tasks already in progress

       - Previous context from Claude Code

    3. After completing work, update the relevant planning documents with:

       - Task completion status

       - New decisions made

       - Any changes to architecture or approach

       - Notes for future collaboration

    Always treat these files as the single source of truth for project state.

Side remark: CC is very expensive when using API billing (compared to e.g. GPT-5). Once a company adopts CC and all developers start to adapt to it at full scale, the bill will go out of the roof.

> Set your own rules: Customize Cursor's work with rules, AGENTS.md, and MCP.

There's no mention of it in the docs, though. It's also interesting it's AGENTS.md on that page instead of AGENT.md, I wonder if that's a typo.

I'd rather .agents/claude or something so we can get these files out of the root directory, which, at least for typescript projects, is already a confetti-like jumble of json files for every little "simple" tool that needs its own configuration file.

I get why package.json isn't enough. But would a .config directory standard really have hurt us so much?

I pay for Cursor and ChatGPT. I can imagine I’d pay for Gemini if I used an android. The chat bots (1) won’t keep the subscription competitive with APIs because the cost and usage models are different and (2) most chat bots today are more of a UX competition than model quality. And the only winners are ChatGPT and whatever integrated options the user has by default (Gemini, MSFT Copilot, etc).

If Cursor can build the better UX for all the use-cases, mobile/desktop chatbot, assistant, in IDE coding agent, CLI coding agent, web-based container coding agent, etc.

In theory, they can spend all their resourcing on this, so you could assume they could have those be more polished.

If they win the market-share here, than the models are just commodity, Cursor lets you pick which ever is best at any given time.

In a sense, "users" are going to get locked in on the tooling. They learn the commands, configuration, and so on of Cursor, it's a higher cost for them to re-learn a different UX. Uninstalling and re-installing another app, plugin, etc. is annoying.

Unless they pair up with OpenAI or Meta.

cursor and 3rd party tools will, unless they make their own superior foundation model, will always have to fight the higher marginal cost battle. This is particularly bad insofar that they offer fixed pricing subscriptions. That means they’re going to have to employ more context saving tricks which are at odds with better performance.

If the cost economics result in Cursor holding, say, 20% fewer tokens in context versus model-provider coding agents, they will necessarily get worse performance, all things equal.

Unless Cursor offers something dramatically different outside of the basic agentic coding stack it’s hard to see why the market will converge to cursor.

You’re underestimating the dollars at play here. With cursor routing all your tokens, they will become a foundation model play sooner than you may think

https://jules.google/

[1]: https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/blob/main/docs/c...

This all just feels profoundly immature. You tell us one thing then two months later you're on to the next thing. There's no sense of mastery here.

I find in ide they like opening documents/changing tabs too much and it means j can't do other things.

Why shouldn't you be able to use the abilities of this tool as a batch command, connected with all your other basic tools, in addition to interactive sessions?

Cursor's chat being locked in an IDE sidebar has felt like driving with a trailer attached. For some tasks the editor is secondary or unnecessary, and as a papered-over VS Code fork, Cursor has a lot of warts that you just had to accept. Now you can just use your favorite editor.

Companies make apps but want to be platforms, so they try to put everything in one app and help you forget about everything else. VS Code and Figma, for example, make their own extension ecosystems rather than connecting outward, because it makes them platforms-as-apps and harder to leave. But a desktop task workflow spans many apps and windows. You compose it yourself to your needs. We are computer users more than app users.

To me as a computer user, a tool that's compact and has compatible outward extension points feels good.

AI generated startup + AI generated blog (https://www.nxgntools.com/) doesn't have much to do with HN