Claude Code Review: Terminal-First AI Coding at Its Finest

Not every developer wants their AI assistant embedded in a GUI. Some of us live in the terminal, and for those developers, Anthropic's Claude Code is a revelation. It is a command-line coding tool that brings the full power of Claude's reasoning to your terminal, with a workflow built around delegation rather than suggestion. After months of using it on real projects, we believe it is the best CLI coding assistant available, particularly for the kind of large-scale, architecturally complex work that GUI-based tools struggle with.

Terminal-First Philosophy

Claude Code is not a VS Code extension or an IDE plugin. It is a standalone CLI tool that you invoke from your terminal, point at a codebase, and interact with through natural language. You describe what you want done, Claude Code reads the relevant files, reasons about the changes needed, and executes them. The results appear in your file system, ready to be reviewed with git diff or your editor of choice.

This terminal-first approach is polarizing. Developers accustomed to GUI-based AI tools may find it spartan. But for terminal-native developers, the workflow is natural and powerful. There are no context menus to navigate, no side panels to manage, no visual distractions. You type what you want, and Claude Code does it. The simplicity is the point.

The 200K context window is central to the experience. Claude Code can hold your entire project in memory while working on it, understanding not just the files it is currently modifying but the broader codebase context that informs those changes. This is not theoretical; we have watched it correctly trace dependencies across dozens of files, understand implicit contracts between modules, and maintain consistency in changes that span an entire project.

Delegation-Style Workflow

The key mental model for Claude Code is delegation, not pair programming. You do not sit alongside it, approving each line of code as it is written. Instead, you describe a task at a high level ("refactor the authentication system to use OAuth 2.0 with PKCE," or "add comprehensive error handling to all API endpoints"), and Claude Code plans and executes the work independently.

This delegation model works because Claude Code is genuinely good at understanding intent and making reasonable decisions about implementation details. When you ask it to add error handling, it does not just wrap everything in try-catch blocks. It considers what kinds of errors each function can produce, what the appropriate response is for each case, and how errors should propagate through the system. The results feel like they were written by a thoughtful developer who understands the project, not by a code generator applying templates.

After the work is done, you review the changes. This review step is essential and should not be skipped. Claude Code is remarkably capable, but it is not infallible. We found that roughly 90% of its changes could be merged as-is, with the remaining 10% needing adjustments ranging from minor style tweaks to occasional logical errors. The review process is fast because git diff gives you a clear picture of exactly what changed.

Large Refactors and Architecture Work

This is where Claude Code truly shines and where it pulls ahead of GUI-based alternatives. We tasked it with refactoring a 30+ file Django project from function-based views to class-based views, including updating all URL configurations, serializers, tests, and documentation. Claude Code completed the work in a single session, maintaining consistency across all files and correctly handling edge cases like custom middleware and permission classes.

We also tested it on architectural migrations: converting a monolithic application to a service-oriented architecture, extracting shared libraries from a multi-project repository, and modernizing a legacy codebase from an older framework version to the latest release. In each case, Claude Code demonstrated a level of architectural understanding that goes beyond simple code transformation. It understood why certain patterns existed, how they should evolve, and what the downstream implications of changes would be.

For these large-scale tasks, the CLI workflow is actually superior to a GUI approach. When you are changing 30, 40, or 50 files, you do not want to review each change in a side-by-side diff panel. You want to run your test suite, check the git diff, and evaluate the changes holistically. The terminal is the right environment for this kind of work.

Pairing with Cursor

One of the most productive workflows we have found is using Claude Code and Cursor together. Claude Code handles the large architectural decisions, major refactors, and cross-cutting changes. Cursor handles the fine-grained, file-level work: implementing individual features, writing specific functions, and making targeted edits.

The combination is powerful because each tool's strengths complement the other's weaknesses. Claude Code's terminal-first approach excels at big-picture changes but is clumsy for small, precise edits where you want visual feedback. Cursor's GUI is perfect for interactive, fine-grained work but becomes unwieldy when changes span dozens of files. Together, they cover the full spectrum of coding tasks.

A typical session might start with Claude Code restructuring a module, continue with Cursor implementing the specific business logic within the new structure, and finish with Claude Code ensuring consistency across the project and updating all related tests.

What It Cannot Do

Claude Code has clear limitations that are important to understand. It has no GUI, which means no syntax highlighting in the tool itself, no visual diff views, and no interactive debugging. You rely entirely on your existing terminal tools for these capabilities. For developers who depend on visual feedback, this is a genuine drawback.

It is also not real-time. There is no streaming autocomplete, no inline suggestions as you type. Claude Code works in discrete request-response cycles. You ask for something, wait for it to execute (which can take seconds to minutes for large tasks), and then review the output. For quick edits and small changes, this overhead makes Cursor the faster choice.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:

• 200K context window holds entire projects in memory
• Delegation workflow excels at large, complex tasks
• Best-in-class performance on multi-file refactors and architecture work
• Terminal-native workflow integrates seamlessly with existing CLI tools
• Strong architectural understanding beyond simple code generation
• Pairs exceptionally well with Cursor for comprehensive coverage

Weaknesses:

• No GUI means no visual diff, syntax highlighting, or interactive debugging
• Not suited for quick, small edits where visual feedback helps
• Request-response cycle adds latency compared to inline suggestions
• Requires comfort with terminal-based workflows
• Output review relies on external tools like git diff
• Can be expensive for extended sessions on large projects

Verdict: 9.0/10

Claude Code is the best CLI coding assistant for complex projects. It occupies a unique niche that no other tool fills as well: large-scale, architecturally complex coding work executed through a terminal-first interface. The delegation workflow is genuinely different from the pair-programming model of GUI-based tools, and for the right tasks, it is dramatically more effective. If your work involves major refactors, architectural migrations, or managing large codebases, Claude Code should be in your toolkit. Pair it with Cursor for complete coverage, and you have an AI-assisted development stack that handles everything from single-line edits to project-wide transformations.