Cursor vs Claude Code Workflow Guide

Both Cursor and Claude Code are powerful, but they excel at different tasks. Most developers use one and ignore the other — or use both inefficiently. This guide helps you choose the right tool for each job and combine them when it makes sense. **The 10 workflow breakdowns:** 1. **Greenfield feature development** — Claude Code wins on large-scope changes across multiple files with full context awareness. 2. **Inline autocomplete while coding** — Cursor wins for fast tab-completion within a file. 3. **Debugging a gnarly error** — Claude Code's ability to read logs, stack traces, and multiple files simultaneously is the better choice. 4. **Refactoring a single function** — Cursor's inline edit (Cmd+K) is faster for contained changes. 5. **Writing tests** — Toss-up; guide covers when each is better based on test framework and file count. 6. **Understanding an unfamiliar codebase** — Claude Code with a well-written CLAUDE.md file dominates this use case. 7. **Code review assistance** — Claude Code with the `/review` command gives more comprehensive feedback. 8. **Database query writing** — Cursor with schema context via `.cursorrules` is often faster. 9. **Documentation writing** — Claude Code with multi-file context produces more accurate docs. 10. **CI/CD pipeline debugging** — Claude Code's ability to read logs, configs, and code together is decisive. **Decision flowchart:** A one-page visual decision tree — print it, pin it up, consult it before you open your tool. **Hybrid workflow patterns:** Three documented workflows for teams using both tools: morning Cursor for flow state coding, afternoon Claude Code for architecture tasks, and a PR review handoff protocol.