Tool page

Claude Code

Item: Claude Code
Rating: 4.8

An AI pair programmer in your terminal with full access to your codebase.

Category: AI
Pricing: €18/month (with Claude Pro) · Usage
My rating: 4.8 out of 5

Try Claude Code (official site, new tab)

In short

Claude Code changes the way you develop. No more copy-paste between the IDE and the chat: it reads, writes and tests directly in your project.

Ideal for: Developers who want an AI pair programmer with the full context of their project
Use case: Refactoring, debugging, feature generation, exploring an unfamiliar codebase

Why I use it

Before: Copilot in IntelliJ for inline autocompletion, and Claude in the browser when I had to think things through. I copy-pasted code into the Claude chat, copy-pasted the answer into IntelliJ, and re-ran the tests by hand.
The problem: Copilot only understands the current line: it can't reason across several files. And Claude in the browser never had the real context of the project: no file tree, no linked files, no git history. On multi-file refactorings, I spent more time briefing than coding.
Why this tool won: Claude Code reads the whole codebase, edits the files, runs the tests, reads the errors and fixes them. The "propose → apply → verify" loop happens in a single terminal with no copy-paste. The same reasoning engine as Claude chat, but with direct access to the project.
Concrete result: A feature that used to take me half a day now takes 1-2h. I can refactor things I didn't dare touch before. And Copilot left my IDE the day Claude Code entered it.

How I use it every day

Multi-file refactoring

Context: When I want to rename a concept or extract a pattern across a whole module.
How: I describe the intent (e.g. "extract all the auth logic into a dedicated service"). Claude Code reads the relevant files, proposes a plan, and applies it in several commits if I approve.
Result: Refactorings I had been putting off for months get done in one session. No file forgotten.

End-to-end feature implementation

Context: For features that touch API + UI + tests (e.g. adding a new route + page + component).
How: I give a short spec, let Claude Code explore the project to spot the conventions, then it proposes an implementation consistent with what exists.
Result: Code that follows the codebase patterns from the first draft. Fewer PR review fixes to redo.

Exploring an unfamiliar codebase

Context: When I take over a client project or an open-source repo I need to understand fast.
How: I ask it to map the architecture, identify the entry points, and explain where a given piece of business logic lives.
Result: In 15 minutes I know where to look to change something. Before: half a day minimum.

Debugging a nasty bug

Context: For bugs that cross several layers (state, side effects, race conditions).
How: I paste the error and the context. It reads the related files, forms hypotheses, adds targeted logs, runs the tests, and iterates until it finds the cause.
Result: Bugs traced in 20 minutes instead of 2 hours of digging blindly.

What it costs

Entry price: €18/month (with Claude Pro). Prices taken from the official site, excluding tax.

What it costs
Plan	Per month	Per year	For whom
Claude Pro	€18	–	Occasional use, small projects
Max (5×) · Recommended	€90	–	Developers who code with Claude every day
Direct API	Variable	–	Heavy usage, usage-based billing

Alternatives I ruled out

Alternatives I ruled out
Alternative	Why I did not keep it
Cursor	Cursor for coding fast with autocompletion. Claude Code for complex refactorings or codebase exploration. Better at: Real-time autocompletion in the IDE, a more visually integrated UI Worse at: Less control over the context sent, weaker on complex multi-file tasks
GitHub Copilot	Copilot for classic autocompletion. Claude Code for deep development sessions. Better at: Native VS Code integration, autocompletion, fixed price $10/month Worse at: Limited context, weaker on multi-file reasoning tasks

Strengths and limits

Pros

Reads, writes and edits files directly: no manual copy-paste
Full codebase context: understands the architecture before proposing anything
Can run terminal commands (tests, build, linter)
Git integration: creates commits, reads history, understands diffs
Works with any language or framework

Cons

Burns through tokens quickly on large projects (cost to watch)
Requires trusting a tool that has access to your files
Less capable than Cursor at real-time autocompletion in the editor

Compatibility

macOS : compatible
Windows : compatible
Linux : compatible
API : compatible

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Code safe for my source code?

Claude Code runs locally on your machine. The code is sent to Anthropic servers only for processing. Don't use it with secrets or unencrypted credentials in your files.

What's the difference with Cursor?

Cursor is a complete IDE with AI autocompletion. Claude Code is a CLI agent that can make complex decisions across several files. The two are complementary.

Final verdict

The tool that changed my way of developing the most. Not for everyone, but essential for complex refactoring sessions.

I recommend it to: Developers who want to speed up refactoring, debugging or codebase exploration tasks.
Not suited for: Daily autocompletion use: Cursor or Copilot are better suited for that.
Value for money: Good · 4.8 out of 5

Other tools on the workbench

AI · €0/month
Claude
AI · €0
Perplexity
AI · €0
Claude Design

In short

Claude Code changes the way you develop. No more copy-paste between the IDE and the chat: it reads, writes and tests directly in your project.

Ideal for: Developers who want an AI pair programmer with the full context of their project
Use case: Refactoring, debugging, feature generation, exploring an unfamiliar codebase

Why I use it

Before: Copilot in IntelliJ for inline autocompletion, and Claude in the browser when I had to think things through. I copy-pasted code into the Claude chat, copy-pasted the answer into IntelliJ, and re-ran the tests by hand.
The problem: Copilot only understands the current line: it can't reason across several files. And Claude in the browser never had the real context of the project: no file tree, no linked files, no git history. On multi-file refactorings, I spent more time briefing than coding.
Why this tool won: Claude Code reads the whole codebase, edits the files, runs the tests, reads the errors and fixes them. The "propose → apply → verify" loop happens in a single terminal with no copy-paste. The same reasoning engine as Claude chat, but with direct access to the project.
Concrete result: A feature that used to take me half a day now takes 1-2h. I can refactor things I didn't dare touch before. And Copilot left my IDE the day Claude Code entered it.

How I use it every day

Multi-file refactoring

Context: When I want to rename a concept or extract a pattern across a whole module.
How: I describe the intent (e.g. "extract all the auth logic into a dedicated service"). Claude Code reads the relevant files, proposes a plan, and applies it in several commits if I approve.
Result: Refactorings I had been putting off for months get done in one session. No file forgotten.

End-to-end feature implementation

Context: For features that touch API + UI + tests (e.g. adding a new route + page + component).
How: I give a short spec, let Claude Code explore the project to spot the conventions, then it proposes an implementation consistent with what exists.
Result: Code that follows the codebase patterns from the first draft. Fewer PR review fixes to redo.

Exploring an unfamiliar codebase

Context: When I take over a client project or an open-source repo I need to understand fast.
How: I ask it to map the architecture, identify the entry points, and explain where a given piece of business logic lives.
Result: In 15 minutes I know where to look to change something. Before: half a day minimum.

Debugging a nasty bug

Context: For bugs that cross several layers (state, side effects, race conditions).
How: I paste the error and the context. It reads the related files, forms hypotheses, adds targeted logs, runs the tests, and iterates until it finds the cause.
Result: Bugs traced in 20 minutes instead of 2 hours of digging blindly.

What it costs

Entry price: €18/month (with Claude Pro). Prices taken from the official site, excluding tax.

What it costs
Plan	Per month	Per year	For whom
Claude Pro	€18	–	Occasional use, small projects
Max (5×) · Recommended	€90	–	Developers who code with Claude every day
Direct API	Variable	–	Heavy usage, usage-based billing

Alternatives I ruled out

Alternatives I ruled out
Alternative	Why I did not keep it
Cursor	Cursor for coding fast with autocompletion. Claude Code for complex refactorings or codebase exploration. Better at: Real-time autocompletion in the IDE, a more visually integrated UI Worse at: Less control over the context sent, weaker on complex multi-file tasks
GitHub Copilot	Copilot for classic autocompletion. Claude Code for deep development sessions. Better at: Native VS Code integration, autocompletion, fixed price $10/month Worse at: Limited context, weaker on multi-file reasoning tasks

Strengths and limits

Pros

Reads, writes and edits files directly: no manual copy-paste
Full codebase context: understands the architecture before proposing anything
Can run terminal commands (tests, build, linter)
Git integration: creates commits, reads history, understands diffs
Works with any language or framework

Cons

Burns through tokens quickly on large projects (cost to watch)
Requires trusting a tool that has access to your files
Less capable than Cursor at real-time autocompletion in the editor

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Code safe for my source code?

Claude Code runs locally on your machine. The code is sent to Anthropic servers only for processing. Don't use it with secrets or unencrypted credentials in your files.

What's the difference with Cursor?

Cursor is a complete IDE with AI autocompletion. Claude Code is a CLI agent that can make complex decisions across several files. The two are complementary.

Final verdict

The tool that changed my way of developing the most. Not for everyone, but essential for complex refactoring sessions.

I recommend it to: Developers who want to speed up refactoring, debugging or codebase exploration tasks.
Not suited for: Daily autocompletion use: Cursor or Copilot are better suited for that.
Value for money: Good · 4.8 out of 5

Claude Code

In short

Why I use it

How I use it every day

Multi-file refactoring

End-to-end feature implementation

Exploring an unfamiliar codebase

Debugging a nasty bug

What it costs

Alternatives I ruled out

Strengths and limits

Pros

Cons

Compatibility

Frequently asked questions

Final verdict

Other tools on the workbench

Claude

Perplexity

Claude Design

Claude Code

In short

Why I use it

How I use it every day

Multi-file refactoring

End-to-end feature implementation

Exploring an unfamiliar codebase

Debugging a nasty bug

What it costs

Alternatives I ruled out

Strengths and limits

Pros

Cons

Compatibility

Frequently asked questions

Final verdict

Other tools on the workbench

Claude

Perplexity

Claude Design