Claude Code ile Cursor'un ana farkı, Claude Code'un agentic yapısının olması ve terminalde çalışması.
Yaptığın işleri subagent'lar, skill'ler veya bunları topladığın plugin'ler ile otomasyona dökebiliyorsun.
Artık iş akışında hayatını ne kolaylaştıracaksa otomasyon yapabiliyorsun. Hayal etmek serbest. Çıktı kalitesi workflow'un kalitesine bağlı olarak değişiyor tabi.
Bir de terminalde çalıştığı için codebase'e hakimiyeti daha fazla.
Cursor'da bu agentic development işine dönmeye çalışıyorda Claude Code kadar güçlü değil.
Cursor = AI Assisted Development gibi
Claude Code = Agentic Development gibi
Bu teknolojileri geliştirenlerin nihai amacı ise otonom development işini çözmek. Paralel agent'lar çalıştırıp, swarm ordularıyla çat çut task'ler tamamlansın, proje hızlıca bitsin istiyorlar.
Claude Code bu otonom development sürecine geçişte aradaki katman.
Yoksa gidip bir file verip "bug'ı düzelt" diye prompt girdiğinde Cursor'la Claude Code'un çok bir farkı yok.
Uzun yazdım, bayadır burada görüyorum ne kullanalım diyen insan. Bilgilerimi paylaşmak istedim.
Ben Claude Code kullanıyorum. Sonuçta bu bir geçiş süreci; Cursor yerine Claude Code'a aşina olup workflow'lar neler, insanlar neyi otonom hale getiriyor, bunları gözlemlemek gelişmelerin gerisinde kalmamayı sağlıyor.
Yoksa yine ben de Cursor'dayken de file verip düzelt diyordum, şimdi Claude Code'da yine file verip düzelt diyorum. Workflow kullanmadığın sürece benzer işler kısaca.
I agree; whenever I want to run Claude in different concepts, I follow this process:
I open Claude Cowork, explain the issue, and ask it to create a plugin for me. Then, I upload the generated plugin as a zip file to Claude Cowork and start the session using the relevant assets. This is how I pivot Claude into different concepts, and the results usually hit the mark.
I have strictly prohibited manual imports within my https://t.co/uheRJed56K projects outside of the official CLI without my explicit approval. I honestly don't understand how some of you manage "YOLO" projects by leaving everything to Claude Code, only to have it struggle with manual imports. The end result is a disaster.
Is there an X community focused on "learning in public" rather than the typical "building in public" marketing hype, where developers actually help each other out? If not, we should definitely start one. I'm tired of doomscrolling just to find genuine information or to reach a point where we can truly support one another.
I used to write comprehensive documentation for Claude before starting projects.
Now I start with almost nothing.
When it makes a mistake, I document that specific thing.
The result: 80% less documentation, better performance.
Turns out most context is noise.
The "Scene-Setting" prompt method:
Instead of: Task → AI → Output
Try: Situation → Need → Desired outcome → AI → Output
❌ "Give me a feature set for my app"
✅ "I got unstructured notes from a teammate. I need to build this into software. Before I code, I want a checklist I can mark complete as I go."
You're giving AI a movie to watch, not a line to read.
The biggest lie in app development:
"Build something great and users will come."
57,000 apps launch monthly on the App Store.
Great products fail every day.
Mediocre products with marketing win every day.
The difference?
Successful founders treat "pre-launch" as a marketing phase.
Failed founders treat it as a building phase.
Same timeline. Completely different outcomes.
My PRD had 47 violations against my own project standards.
I didn't find a single one manually.
Built an AI system that checks every doc against every standard I've defined.
Start here:
1. Download Ghostty (free)
2. Run Claude Code in terminal
3. Open a second window
4. Never watch Claude think again
Your laptop will thank you. Your output will double.
If you're still reviewing every line Claude writes, you're using it wrong.
Opus 4.5 makes fewer mistakes than most junior devs.
Your job isn't to check its work.
Your job is to give it more work while it's working.
🧵 Here's the workflow shift that 10x'd my output: