Skip to content

Comprehensive evaluation of 15 AI coding agents (Cursor, Copilot, Claude, Replit, v0, Warp, etc.) with implementations, screenshots, and professional scoring. Published on Turing Post.

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

The-Focus-AI/june-2025-coding-agent-report

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

Β 

History

3 Commits
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 
Β 

Repository files navigation

June 2025 Coding Agent Report

πŸ“– Read the full report published on Turing Post:
🦸🏻#20: What Coding Agent Wins?
A hands-on comparison of 15 AI coding tools across IDEs, CLIs, full-stack agents, and hybrid platforms

A comprehensive evaluation of 15 AI coding agents across IDE, CLI, Full-Stack, and Hybrid platforms, analyzing their usability, output quality, and professional viability.

πŸ“„ Quick Access

πŸ“Š Download Complete PDF Report - Full 60-page evaluation with detailed analysis, scoring matrices, and professional recommendations

Overview

This repository contains the complete June 2025 coding agent evaluation, including the original report, source materials, and implementation examples from each tested agent.

Key Findings

Top Performers

  • Overall Winner: Cursor + Warp (24 points each)
  • Professional Development: Cursor Background Agent (24/24 - strongly recommend hire)
  • Casual Users: Replit (easy setup, integrated hosting)
  • Product Design: v0 (excellent UI iteration, NextJS/Vercel focused)
  • Enterprise: Copilot Agent, Jules (GitHub integration, SDLC focused)
  • Experts/Tinkerers: RooCode, Goose (BYOM, local model support)

Agent Categories Evaluated

IDE Agents

  • Copilot - Traditional autocomplete, requires expertise
  • Cursor - Professional favorite, great developer experience
  • RooCode - Expert-level, excellent BYOM support
  • Windsurf - Basic functionality, needs improvement

CLI Agents

  • aider - First OSS agent, git-heavy workflow
  • Claude Code - Solid output, blinking lights UI
  • Codex CLI - Functional but unremarkable
  • Goose - Configuration-heavy, expert-focused

Full-Stack Agents

  • Codex Agent - GitHub integration, PM-friendly
  • Copilot Agent - Game-changing potential if it works
  • Cursor Agent - Surprising background capabilities
  • Jules - Slick Google product, fast execution
  • Replit - Best for business value, integrated platform

Hybrid Platforms

  • v0 - Obviously the way to go for UI design
  • Warp - Terminal replacement, scripting powerhouse

Methodology

Each agent received the same standardized prompt:

Build a simple webapp that makes it easy to collect ideas. The user should be able to enter in a new idea, see a list of existing ideas, and be able to "vote" on them which will move them up in the list. The user should also be able to add notes and to the ideas if they want more detail, including attaching files. Build it using node that will be deployed in a docker container with a persistent volume for storage, and make sure that everything has unit tests.

Agents were scored across 6 categories:

  1. Code Quality & Structure
  2. Testing Setup
  3. Tooling & Environment
  4. Documentation & Comments
  5. Overall Professionalism
  6. Hire Recommendation

Recommendations by Use Case

Software Professionals: Cursor + Warp

Recommended workflow:

  1. Use ChatGPT/Claude to flesh out ideas with project-brief-maker
  2. Create repo and save as project-brief
  3. Start Cursor Agent to "implement @project-brief"
  4. Test and develop with Cursor Agent using small, targeted changes
  5. Deploy using Warp for infrastructure scripts

Business Value: Replit

For casual users solving real problems - easiest to start, great visual planner, integrated hosting.

Product Designers: v0

For UI iteration and communicating with engineering teams - best for prototyping, NextJS/Vercel focused.

Project/Product Managers: Copilot Agent or Jules

Most promise for SDLC integration, though still rough around edges.

Experts and Tinkerers: RooCode and Goose

Best control over models and prompts, local model support, open source future.

Key Insights: Don't Be Passive Aggressive

πŸ“ Read the companion post: Don't be passive aggressive with your agents

Based on our evaluation and experience, here are the critical lessons:

1. Communicate Clearly, Not Aggressively

When agents go off rails, resist writing in ALL CAPS. Instead:

  • Step back and take a breath
  • Roll back to previous checkpoint
  • Adjust prompt with more context
  • Ask agent to review existing code first

2. Speed > Endurance

"Claude ran for 7 hours" isn't impressive - it's concerning. Jules completing tasks in 6 minutes vs Copilot taking 30 minutes doesn't mean 5x better results, it means 5x smarter execution.

3. Match Your Development Lifecycle

  • One-off script? Use dynamic typing, inline everything
  • Production system? More ceremony and structure needed
  • Different tools for different contexts

4. Drop Unnecessary Ceremony

Agents often over-engineer. Push back on:

  • Complex build systems for simple scripts
  • Modular file structures when inline works
  • Enterprise patterns for MVPs
  • Remember: future you will use agents to clean up technical debt

5. Technical Debt Is Different Now

With agents reducing the cost of refactoring, yesterday's technical debt becomes more manageable. The economics of code maintenance have fundamentally shifted.

6. Rules-Driven Development

Document development practices in your repo:

  • Cursor: .rules directory
  • Claude: CLAUDE.md files
  • Copilot: GitHub integration rules
  • These guide agent behavior across runs

Repository Contents

Reports

  • june-2025-coding-agents.pdf - Complete formatted report
  • june-2025-coding-agents.md - Source markdown

Visual Gallery

Implementation Examples

Each agent's implementation is available in local directories with full source code:

IDE Agents

CLI Agents

Full-Stack Agents

Hybrid Platforms

  • idears-v0/ - Vercel's UI agent πŸ† (Score: 24/25)
  • idears-warp/ - Warp terminal implementation πŸ† (Score: 24/25)

Testing Philosophy

This evaluation tests non-expert empowerment - how these tools perform for someone dipping in for the first time. We used a "YOLO" approach: blindly accepting suggestions without code review or iteration, simulating how non-coders might interact with these tools.

Future Outlook

The landscape is rapidly evolving. By summer 2025, we expect:

  • Better SDLC integration across all platforms
  • Improved local model performance
  • More sophisticated rule-based development workflows
  • Greater emphasis on speed over complexity

Related Resources


Report authors: Will Schenk & Ksenia Se
Published on Turing Post: June 21, 2025
Original evaluation: June 2025