IDE-first, agent inside the editor, Cascade reviews the diff before push. Different agent than Cursor: Cascade is more autonomous on multi-step tasks. The trade-off vs Cursor: less hunk-by-hunk granularity, more 'kick it off and review what it did'.
Cascade plans across files and runs the plan with less hand-holding than Composer. After the agent finishes, ask it to review its own diff before you push — it's the same model that wrote the code, but the second pass catches its own omissions.
VS Code fork — keymap and extensions carry over.
Hand it the plan from Claude (or describe the change directly). Cascade plans + executes; you review the result, not each step.
In Cascade, ask 'review the diff for issues before I push'. The agent rereads its own work and flags missed edge cases. Catches ~70% of what an external reviewer would. Push, then open the PR.
Ran the same refactor tickets through Windsurf and Cursor. Windsurf shipped ~20% faster on the multi-file work because the hunk-by-hunk overhead in Composer slowed each step. Lost a percentage point on accuracy on tighter edits — Cursor's per-hunk control caught a regression Cascade missed.
If Cascade does 12 things and 1 is wrong, undoing is harder than Cursor's per-hunk acceptance. Use git branches per Cascade run as a safety net.
Fewer Stack Overflow answers when something breaks. Worth knowing before committing the whole team.
