"CLI coding agents: OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, Gemini CLI"

This title was summarized by AI from the post below.

Quick thoughts on CLI coding agents since I've suddenly found myself using OpenAI Codex more than anything else... **OpenAI Codex** ➕ - Busts through tougher challenges on the back end - Much cleaner PRs: build errors are rarer, fewer syntax fixes needed - Seeming improbable amount of capacity even in just a Pro account ➖ - Offers to do too much extra stuff. I create a ticket, it tackles half (very effectively), then says "how about I do X?" No! Focus. We're not done with the ticket. - Verbose and loves to repeat itself - Tends to want confirmation/reassurance more often ❓ - Haven't tested it on the front end yet (and nervous to) **Claude Code** ➕ - Plows through a _lot_ of work without taking a breath - Solid front-end work - Strikes a good balance between telling me what it's doing and not giving me an opus to read (see what I did there?) ➖ - Can get very sloppy. PRs that don't build, syntax issues, piling in new code w/out any cleanup. Multiple rounds often needed to clean things up. - Too often unfounded confidence. "I have done X and it will work this time." Um, it didn't work the last few times and you said the same. - Blows through capacity pretty quickly at Pro level (Note: Claude performance not apples-to-apples with Codex b/c I'm using Sonnet 4 due to Pro plan limitations. But that's a downside - Codex gives me GPT-5 on the same level plan!) **Gemini CLI** Well... what can I say about Gemini CLI. It's a relatively competent junior dev. In main projects, I feel ok giving it a very targeted feature to implement or bug to fix. I'd say it's 60/40 that it gets it when it's on 2.5-pro. If it's a goof project or experiment, I can let both 2.5-pro and 2.5-flash run wild and be ok if it's all a hash. And often it'll be a hash. A plus? Finding humor in the all-too-often moments when it says (paraphrase) "Oh my, I really did screw that up. Let me go back and revert everything I just did." Bottom line: Not my go to for anything critical. **Cursor CLI and non-CLI coding agents** I gave Cursor CLI a very very limited test. It seemed good with GPT-5. But through Cursor I'd use GPT-5, Claude (Sonnet likely due to cost), or Gemini. So I prefer to just use the providers' CLI agents directly. Same with non-CLI coding agents I've used. I tried Replit agent a few times - it was ok, but mainly for prototyping, nothing serious (this was a while back to be fair). Cursor IDE was fine, but when I got started with Claude Code, I never looked back. Anyone had a different experience? I'm particularly interested to hear from anyone that leans on Gemini CLI (i.e. how?).

I've been playing around with using Claude Code extension vs the built in helper in Cursor (with different models) quite a bit lately. I'm not sure if I can tell a massive difference between the two. Almost all are excellent at initial scaffolding of a project given a prompt of what you want it to do. Where I find less use is with application specific suggestions where you really have to do things in the way that application wants it done even if it recognizes the application. I built a working application with only writing very little code myself and it works great but was pretty annoying getting through some bugs and how certain features were implemented. I've found the more narrow the focus on a change (perhaps just one file or even function/line) is much more reliable. All that said it is still pretty exciting.

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories