AI Coding Tools
Code completion, agents and review tools that work inside your editor or terminal.
13 tools
- ClaudeAssistant known for long-context reasoning and writing that needs less editing.Official: claude.aifrom $20/mo
- GitHub CopilotThe most widely deployed coding assistant, available in most major editors.Official: github.com/features/copilotfrom $10/mo
- Claude CodeTerminal-based coding agent that runs commands and edits files directly.Official: claude.com/product/claude-codefrom $20/mo
- Codex CLIOpenAI's open-source terminal coding agent, rewritten in Rust.Official: developers.openai.com/codex/clifrom $20/mo
- CursorEditor built around AI, with codebase-wide context rather than single-file autocomplete.Official: cursor.comfrom $20/mo
- Devin Desktop (Windsurf)The renamed Windsurf editor, now combining a full IDE with a command center for coding agents.Official: devin.ai/desktopfrom $20/mo
- Gemini CLIGoogle's open-source terminal agent, with the most usable free tier of the group.Official: github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cliFree tier available
- opencodeOpen-source terminal coding agent that runs on whichever model you point it at.Official: opencode.aiFree
- PiA minimal terminal coding harness you extend in TypeScript instead of configuring.Official: pi.devFree
- herdrA background server that owns your agents' terminals, and knows which one is blocked.Official: herdr.devFree
- PhindSearch engine tuned for programming questions, with runnable answers.Official: phind.comfrom $20/mo
- CrushA terminal coding agent from the team that makes terminal interfaces look good.Official: charm.land/crushFree
- gooseOpen-source agent that installs, executes and tests — not just suggests code.Official: goose-docs.aiFree
This is the category where AI has changed daily practice most concretely, and it has moved through three distinct generations in a short time: autocomplete that finishes the line you are typing, chat that answers questions about your code, and agents that read a repository, make changes across several files and run the tests. Which generation a tool belongs to matters far more than its benchmark numbers.
What to look at when choosing
Completion, chat and agent are three different products
Completion is low-friction and helps most with boilerplate. Chat is good for understanding unfamiliar code and for questions you would otherwise search. Agents can carry out a multi-step change on their own — which is the biggest leap and also the one that needs the most supervision. Buying an agent when you wanted better autocomplete is a common and expensive mismatch.
How much of your codebase it can see
A tool that only sees the open file will suggest code that ignores the helper you already wrote and the conventions your team follows. Repository-wide indexing is what makes suggestions fit the code around them. On a small script this is invisible; on a large codebase it is the difference between useful and irritating.
Where the code goes, and what your employer allows
Most of these tools send code to a server. Policies differ on retention, training and whether an enterprise tier changes any of it, and some organisations restrict which tools may touch their source at all. Check this before adopting a tool into daily work rather than after, because reversing that decision is awkward.
When you probably do not need one
These tools amplify whatever judgement you already have; they do not substitute for it. Generated code that looks right and passes a quick glance is the main hazard, and the risk is highest exactly where you know the domain least — which is also where you are most tempted to accept it. If you cannot review the output, you are not saving time, you are deferring it.