Still, I do use Claude Code and Codex daily as there is nothing better out there currently. But they still feel tailored towards vibe-coding instead of professional development.
I find the flow works bc if it starts going off piste I just end it. Plus I then get my pre-commit hooks etc. I still like being relatively hands on though.
Trying to follow along better is exactly the opposite of what I'd advocate - it's a waste of time especially with Claude, as Claude tends to favour trying lots of things, seeing what works, and revising its approach multiple times for complex tasks. If you follow along every step, you'll be tearing your hair out over stupid choices that it'll undo within seconds if you just let it work.
Err, doesn’t it have /review?
Imagine a GUI built around git branches + agents working in those branches + tooling to manage the orchestration and small review points, rather than "here's a chat and tool calling, glhf".
All of the models that can do tool calls are typically good enough to use Git.
Just this week I used both Claude Code and Codex to look at unstaged/staged changes and to review them multiple times, even do comparison between a feature branch and the main branch to identify why a particular feature might have broken in the feature branch.
But again, it's the "user message > llm reason > llm tool call > tool response > llm reason > llm response" flow I think is inefficient and not good enough. It's a lazy solution built on top of the chat flow.
What I imagined would exist by now would be something smarter, where you don't say "Ok, now please commit this" or whatever.
I already have a tool for myself that launch Codex, Claude Code, Qwen Code(r?) and Gemini for each change I do, and automatically manage them into git branches, and lets me diff between what they do and so on.
Yet I still think we haven't really figured out a good UX for this.