Claude vs Cursor vs Windsurf: which AI agent uses skills best?

March 26, 2026

6 min read

Alireza Bashiri

Founder

I use all three agents. Not because I'm indecisive—because they're each good at different things. I've built projects with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf using the same skill files, and the results are noticeably different. Not in the "one is garbage" way. More in the "each has a personality" way.

Here's what I've found after building with all three, so you can pick the right one without burning a week testing them yourself.

Claude Code: the skill specialist

Claude Code is a CLI agent. You run it in your terminal, it reads your project, and it builds. No IDE, no visual interface, just text in and code out.

Skill adherence: 9/10. This is where Claude Code dominates. When you give it a skill file, it reads the entire thing and references specific sections as it generates code. I've tested this repeatedly with the SaaS Builder skill. Claude Code follows the architecture patterns, naming conventions, and component structures with remarkable consistency. It's rare that I find a file where it deviated from the skill's instructions.

Full build capability: 10/10. Claude Code can scaffold an entire project from scratch. Give it a skill file and a product description, and it'll create 40-80 files with proper structure, install dependencies, and have a running application. It's the best agent for going from zero to working prototype.

Speed: Fast. A full scaffold takes 5-15 minutes depending on complexity. Individual features take 1-5 minutes.

Best for: Building new projects from scratch, major feature additions, full-stack builds where you want the skill patterns followed precisely. If you're starting a new SaaS and you have a skill file, Claude Code is the first choice.

Weak spots: No visual interface. You're staring at terminal output. If you want to see your code side-by-side with the AI suggestions before they're applied, that's not how Claude Code works. It applies changes directly. You review afterward.

Cost: $20/month for Claude Pro.

Cursor: the IDE integrator

Cursor is an IDE—a full code editor with AI built in. It looks like VS Code, acts like VS Code, but has AI superpowers.

Skill adherence: 7/10. Cursor reads skill files when you add them to context, and it follows patterns reasonably well. But it's more prone to improvising than Claude Code. I've seen it pick up about 70-80% of a skill's patterns and make its own decisions for the rest. Not bad decisions, usually, but not what the skill specified either.

Editing existing code: 10/10. This is Cursor's superpower. It understands your existing codebase deeply because it's an IDE—it sees every file, every import, every type definition. When you're modifying existing code, Cursor is surgical. It knows what will break if it changes something, and it avoids those breaks.

Visual feedback: 9/10. You see the code. You see the diff before it's applied. You can accept or reject individual changes. For developers who want control over every line, this is huge.

Speed: Slightly slower than Claude Code for full builds because the IDE interface adds overhead. But for targeted edits, it's faster because you can point it at exactly the right file and function.

Best for: Editing and refining existing projects, developers who want to review changes before they're applied, IDE-centric workflows where you're coding alongside the agent.

Weak spots: Worse at full project scaffolding than Claude Code. Skill adherence drops when the context window fills up with existing project files—the skill file gets less attention as the project grows.

Cost: $20/month for Cursor Pro.

Windsurf: the rising contender

Windsurf is newer. It's another AI-powered IDE, similar in concept to Cursor but with its own approach to agent-assisted coding.

Skill adherence: 6/10. Windsurf handles skill files, but it's the least consistent of the three when it comes to following patterns precisely. It tends to pick up the high-level architecture directions (folder structure, framework choices) but miss the detailed conventions (specific component patterns, error handling approaches). It's improving with each update though.

Flow state: 8/10. Windsurf's standout feature is its "Cascade" flow, where the agent works through multi-step tasks with less prompting needed. You describe a feature and it'll plan the steps, create the files, and connect everything. When it works well, it's a smooth experience.

Best for: Quick iterations, developers who want a more autonomous agent, projects where you care more about speed than pattern precision.

Weak spots: Skill adherence isn't as tight as Claude Code. The agent sometimes makes architectural decisions that conflict with the skill file's patterns, especially on larger projects. It's the newest of the three, and the skill-following behavior is still maturing.

Cost: Free tier available. Pro plan pricing varies.

The comparison table

My workflow: using all three

Here's how I actually use these in practice. This isn't theory—this is what I do on every project.

Phase 1: Scaffold with Claude Code. New project, skill file in the root, clear product description. Claude Code builds the foundation. 40-80 files, proper architecture, auth, billing, dashboard. This takes one session, usually 2-4 hours.

Phase 2: Refine with Cursor. Open the project in Cursor. Now I'm in an IDE with the full context visible. I use Cursor for targeted edits: tweaking component layouts, adding specific features, fixing bugs I spotted during review. The visual diff is invaluable here.

Phase 3: Quick iterations with any agent. Once the project is mature, I use whichever agent is most convenient for the task at hand. Small bug fix? Cursor. New feature that needs to follow the skill patterns? Claude Code. Quick experiment? Whichever is already open.

The key insight: skill files work with all three. The same SKILL.md file I used in Claude Code is still sitting in my project root when I open Cursor. No reformatting, no conversion, no adapter layers. That's the whole point of the OpenClaw format.

Which one should you pick?

If you're a non-technical founder: Start with Claude Code for the initial build (it follows skills best), then switch to Cursor for visual tweaks (easier to see what's happening).

If you're a developer: Use Claude Code for scaffolding, Cursor for day-to-day coding. This combo covers everything.

If you're budget-conscious: Windsurf's free tier is legitimate for smaller projects. Upgrade to Claude Code when you're serious about a build.

Regardless of which agent you pick, the skill file is the same. Grab the SaaS Builder skill and try it with whichever agent you have. The difference between with-skill and without-skill is bigger than the difference between agents.

Not sure which skill fits your project? Take the skill finder quiz.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which agent should I pick if I've never used one before?

Start with Claude Code if you're comfortable in a terminal—it follows skill patterns most consistently and is the best for building from scratch. Start with Cursor if you prefer a visual editor where you can see the code and approve changes before they're applied. Both work well with skill files.

Can I switch agents mid-project?

Yes. Skill files are agent-agnostic Markdown. Start a project in Claude Code, open the same folder in Cursor for refinement, and everything works. Your codebase is just files on your machine. Any agent can pick up where another left off because they're all reading the same code and the same skill file.

Do I need to modify the skill file for different agents?

No. The same SKILL.md file works identically in Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf without any changes. The OpenClaw format is designed to be agent-agnostic. Drop the file in your project, tell the agent to read it, and you're set.