If you are not deep in software development, names like Cursor and Claude Code probably do not mean much, and that is fine. What does matter is whether your partner can deliver reliably, move efficiently, and catch problems before they become expensive surprises. Over the last couple of years, a new class of tools has changed how strong teams work. We have leaned into them deliberately, not to replace judgment, but to make planning, implementation, and review more thorough and consistent.
This article is a walkthrough of how we actually use those tools day to day: what problem each one solves, the sequence we follow on a typical feature, and why that matters for timeline and quality on client work.
Why the Process Matters as Much as the Tools
AI in development is easy to misunderstand. Headlines tend to imply you describe a feature, press a button, and ship production code. In practice, the teams that get real value treat AI as a force multiplier inside a tight process: clear intent, human review at the right checkpoints, automated tests, and a bias toward evidence (does it work in the browser? do the tests pass?) rather than vibes.
That is the posture we take at Select Interactive. The tools are impressive, but the workflow is what turns them into faster delivery and fewer late-stage fires. Clients feel that as shorter cycles between usable increments, fewer regressions, and more predictable scope conversations, because we surface risks earlier.
Two Tools, Two Roles, Cursor and Claude Code
Cursor is our full coding IDE, not a bolt-on to a plain text editor. AI is built into the product: chat, planning, refactors, and multi-agent workflows that can work across the whole project while you stay in one environment. We spend the bulk of our engineering time here, designing, implementing, reviewing diffs, and iterating with the same tool chain our team already uses for serious development.
One capability worth calling out: Cursor’s cloud agents let us spin up multiple agent sessions against the same repository in parallel (for example, one track tightening a component, another expanding tests, another chasing a perf pass) without serializing everything through a single queue. Used with clear plans and human review, that parallelism shortens the path from “idea” to “merged, verified change” without turning the codebase into a free-for-all.
Claude Code is Anthropic’s terminal-based coding agent: powerful for scripted, cross-file work from the shell when we want a CLI-shaped workflow or a change that fits that model. We still reach for it regularly, but Cursor is the default home base for how we plan, build, and review most features.
Neither tool replaces architects or reviewers, both are levers. The through-line is the same: explicit intent, checkpoints, and tests so automation speeds us up without lowering the bar.
Our Typical Workflow on a Feature
On a concrete task, say a new UI component, a form flow, or an integration, this is the shape of how we work:
- Plan first. We use Cursor and/or Claude Code to draft a plan: scope, files likely touched, edge cases, and test ideas. We review, discuss with the agent, and revise as needed. A bad plan, automated or not, only produces bad code faster.
- Initial implementation. We have agents build a first pass from that plan, most often in Cursor. Depending on the complexity we will use multiple models to generate multiple versions, review the results and proceed with what we find most promising.
- Dedicated test pass. We use another agent pass to author or extend a test suite, run it, and fix failures until green. Tests are not optional decoration; they are how we lock in behavior before we move on.
- Human verification. We review and test full feature functionality in the browser.
- Architecture and performance review. We run a follow-up prompt aimed at framework conventions, composition, performance optimizations, and security vulnerabilities. That pass produces a punch list of ideas, not a mandate.
That last point is important. The review step often surfaces worthwhile refactors or optimizations. We evaluate each suggestion on merit: real user benefit, maintenance cost, and schedule. We implement what earns its place and leave the rest, expertise means knowing the difference.
What We Have Seen in Practice
Delivery time has improved because the expensive parts of development, scaffolding, boilerplate, repetitive refactors, and exhaustive test coverage, are faster without cutting corners on review. Parallel agent work also means we can explore options (for example, two structural approaches) in the time we used to spend on one.
Quality has improved upstream because bugs and performance issues surface during planning and automated review instead of only after release. Security and composition checks become a recurring habit, not a rare audit. The result is fewer “we will fix that later” items that never get scheduled.
None of this removes the need for product sense, design alignment, or stakeholder communication. It strengthens the engineering layer underneath those things, so the product conversations stay focused on what to build, not on preventable technical debt.
The Short Version
We use Cursor and Claude Code the same way we use any serious tool: inside a process that prioritizes clarity, review, tests, and real-world verification. The outcome for clients is straightforward: we can move faster while holding a higher bar for quality and risk. If you are planning a web application or a major rebuild and want a team that invests in how work gets done, not just the brochure, we would love to talk.
Work With Us
Have a project in mind?
We build the web’s most demanding applications. Let’s talk about yours.