Claude Code + Cursor: What 30 Sessions of Combined Usage Taught Me

I tracked 30 development sessions comparing solo Claude Code, solo Cursor, and combined usage. The combined workflow cut implementation time by roughly 40% compared to either tool alone, but only when I allocated tasks to each tool’s strength.¹

TL;DR

Claude Code excels at terminal operations, multi-file changes, and agentic task delegation. Cursor excels at inline completions, quick single-file edits, and real-time code suggestions. After 30 tracked sessions building blakecrosley.com, my Claude Code hook system, and several iOS apps, I found a clear division: Claude Code for breadth (architecture, multi-file refactors, testing, deployment), Cursor for depth (single-file implementation, inline suggestions, visual diff review). The combination eliminates the context-switching overhead of forcing either tool into the other’s domain.

Where Each Tool Wins

Claude Code’s Strengths

Cursor’s Strengths

Three Real Workflow Examples

Example 1: Blog Quality System (Claude Code → Cursor → Claude Code)

Task: Build a 12-module blog linter with citation verification.

Claude Code (architecture, 45 min): Read existing content.py, designed module structure, created blog_lint.py with 6 initial modules (meta validation, footnote checking, code block language detection), wired CLI in blog-lint.py, ran initial tests.

Cursor (implementation polish, 20 min): Refined regex patterns for citation-no-url detection, tuned ONLINE_PATTERNS matching, added edge case handling for academic paper citations vs. web references. Cursor’s inline completions excelled at iterating on regex — I could type partial patterns and accept/reject suggestions faster than describing the pattern to Claude Code.

Claude Code (validation, 15 min): Ran full test suite (77 tests), fixed 3 failures from the regex refinement, linted all 33 blog posts, created commit.

Total: 80 min. Solo Claude Code estimate: 100 min. Solo Cursor estimate: 150+ min (Cursor struggles with multi-file test infrastructure).

Example 2: iOS SwiftUI View (Cursor → Claude Code)

Task: Build a spaced repetition card view for Ace Citizenship.

Cursor (implementation, 30 min): Built the entire SwiftUI view: card flip animation, progress indicator, answer reveal. Cursor’s inline completions for SwiftUI are strong because the framework has consistent patterns. Tab-completing @Observable, NavigationStack, and modifier chains felt natural.

Claude Code (integration, 10 min): Wired the view into the navigation flow, added SwiftData queries, ran the build, fixed a type mismatch between the view model and the data model.

Total: 40 min. This task was 75% single-file work, so Cursor did most of the heavy lifting.

Example 3: Hook Infrastructure (Claude Code dominant)

Task: Build recursion-guard.sh with spawn budget tracking.

Claude Code (100% of implementation): This task was entirely multi-file: reading 14 JSON configs, editing the hook script, updating the session-start initialization, testing across multiple agent spawn scenarios, and validating with 48 bash integration tests. Cursor adds no value here — the work spans too many files and requires terminal operations (running test scripts, checking hook output, validating JSON config loading).

Where the Combination Fails

Failure 1: Context Drift Between Tools

Claude Code makes filesystem changes. Cursor sees those changes in the editor. But Cursor’s context (.cursorrules, open files, recent edits) doesn’t know about the architectural decisions Claude Code made. I’ve had Cursor suggest patterns that contradicted architecture Claude Code just established because Cursor’s MDC files weren’t updated.

My fix: After a Claude Code architecture session, I update .cursorrules or relevant MDC files with the new patterns before switching to Cursor. This adds 2-3 minutes of overhead but prevents Cursor from fighting the new architecture.

Failure 2: Overlapping File Edits

Both tools can edit the same file. If Claude Code modifies content.py and I switch to Cursor to tweak a function in the same file, Cursor occasionally suggests changes based on the pre-edit state (its index hasn’t refreshed). The result: conflicting edits that require manual resolution.

My fix: Close and reopen the file in Cursor after Claude Code edits it. Or use Claude Code for the entire file if multiple edits are needed.

Failure 3: Terminal-Heavy Tasks Don’t Split Well

Tasks that require frequent terminal interaction (debugging test failures, iterating on shell scripts, running builds) don’t benefit from Cursor at all. Switching to Cursor mid-debug just to make a one-line fix adds window-switching overhead that exceeds the typing time saved.

My rule: If the task requires more than 3 terminal commands, stay in Claude Code for the entire task.

Session Data Summary

The combined workflow wins most on “architecture + polish” tasks where Claude Code handles the structural work and Cursor handles the detail work. The combined workflow adds 3-5 minutes of context-switching overhead per task, which means tasks under 10 minutes don’t benefit from splitting.²

My Current Split

Key Takeaways

For developers adopting both tools: - Use Claude Code for anything involving multiple files, terminal commands, or autonomous task execution - Use Cursor for single-file edits, inline completions, and visual diff review - Update shared context files (CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules) after architectural changes to prevent context drift - Tasks under 10 minutes don’t benefit from tool splitting; the context-switching overhead exceeds the time saved

For team leads evaluating AI tooling: - The tools serve different workflow phases; evaluating either in isolation misses the combined value - Track the architecture-vs-polish ratio of your team’s work to estimate the combined workflow benefit

References