The Best AI Coding Tools in 2025 According To ChatGPT’s Deep Research

Leave a Comment

Great! I’ll conduct in-depth research on AI coding tools like Cursor, Windsurf, Bolt.new, Bolt.diy, Lovable, Replit Agents, v0.dev from Vercel, Claude, ChatGPT Canvas, and Roo.

This guide will:

  • Provide clear comparisons with structured tables.
  • Categorize tools by skill level, use case, and features.
  • Include insights from real user reviews, peer-reviewed studies, and popular videos.
  • Highlight technical details, potential leaked prompts, and effective prompting tips.
  • Offer a skimmable format with visual elements like headers, bold text, and bullet points for quick insights.

I’ll get back to you soon with a comprehensive guide!

In-Depth Guide to AI Coding Tools

AI-powered coding assistants are transforming software development. This guide compares Cursor, Windsurf, Bolt.new, Bolt.diy, Lovable, Replit Agent, v0.dev (Vercel), Claude, ChatGPT Canvas, and Roo – highlighting their features, target users, use cases, and real-world feedback. We’ll present key facts in a comparison table, categorize tools by skill level and use case, share user insights (pros and cons), and offer prompting tips tailored to each platform. Use the structured tables and sections below to quickly find the information you need.

Comparison Table: Key Features of AI Coding Tools

ToolLanguage SupportPricingIntegration / UIAutomationDebugging Assistance
CursorMultiple (language-agnostic; excels in JavaScript, Python, TypeScript) (Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game)Free tier (limited); Pro $20/mo; Business $40/mo (Cursor vs GitHub Copilot – Builder.io)Standalone IDE (VS Code fork) with chat & autocomplete (Cursor (code editor) – Wikipedia) (Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game); VS Code extensions supported (Cursor (code editor) – Wikipedia)Partial – user-guided context selection (not fully autonomous) (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?)Yes – smart code fixes and error correction on request (Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game); ~20k token context for project-wide queries (Context in Cursor – Discussion – Cursor – Community Forum)
WindsurfMultiple (language-agnostic; broad support incl. web languages) (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025))Free tier; Pro $15/mo; Ultimate $60/mo (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025))Standalone IDE (Codeium-based); clean UI (minimal, Apple-like) (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?); supports VS Code (via extension) (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025)) (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital)High – “Cascade” agent auto-fetches context & runs commands (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?) (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?)Yes – can generate tests (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025)) and handle errors via agent (on-demand diffs, fix suggestions) (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?)
Bolt.newPrimarily JavaScript/TypeScript and NodeJS (full-stack web); also Python, SQL tested (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital)Usage-based (free trial, then paid tokens for AI compute) (AI Automation Society · General Discussion – Skool) (Can someone tell me why is bolt.diy better than bolt.new ? : r/boltnewbuilders)Web-based IDE (StackBlitz engine) with live preview; minimal UI (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital); VS Code interop for editing (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital)High – fully autonomous project generation (scaffolds & updates multiple files); auto-runs code to test changes (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!)Yes – monitors terminal output and auto-fixes errors during generation (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!) (iterative bug fixing)
Bolt.diyJavaScript/NodeJS for app runtime; supports any LLM (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.) for code generation (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!)Free (open-source); self-host with your own API keys (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!)Web-based IDE (self-hosted StackBlitz app); identical UI to Bolt.new; runs locally or on your serverHigh – same automation as Bolt.new (AI builds & deploys apps); fully extensible with custom or open models (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!) (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!)Yes – runs and debugs code; detects runtime errors and suggests fixes automatically (via community add-ons) (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!) (Can someone tell me why is bolt.diy better than bolt.new ? : r/boltnewbuilders)
LovableFront-end focus: React, Tailwind CSS, TypeScript; auto-generates backends (Supabase, Node, APIs) ([Lovable.dev – AI Web App BuilderRefine](https://refine.dev/blog/lovable-ai/#:~:text=You%20instruct%20it%20what%20you,and%20adding%20your%20own%20flair)) ([Lovable.dev – AI Web App BuilderRefine](https://refine.dev/blog/lovable-ai/#:~:text=,Lovable%20know))Free (limited); Starter $20/mo; Launch $50; Scale $100 (Lovable) (Lovable)Web app builder with visual editor + AI chat; live preview and one-click deploy (Lovable); GitHub sync and hosting included
Replit AgentMultiple (supports any language on Replit: Python, JavaScript, C++, etc.) (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025))Free tier (limited AI usage); Pro ~$20/mo (Ghostwriter/Agent access) (Meet Replit Ghostwriter, your partner in code)Replit IDE integration (browser-based coding platform) (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent); agent runs in the workspace consoleHigh – end-to-end app creation: sets up env, installs packages, writes & deploys code from an idea (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent)Yes – executes code to test and debug; iteratively fixes errors (can loop on bugs automatically) (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent) (Scam alert: ghost changes to Agent pricing : r/replit)
v0.dev (Vercel)Web/UI only: Next.js (React, TypeScript), Tailwind, shadcn/UI; Node API routes (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections)Free Beta (no cost; deployed via Vercel account) (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel)Chat-based website builder with real-time web preview (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections); deploys to Vercel subdomain easily (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel)High – generative UI: builds responsive front-ends from prompts; pulls UI components & NPM libs on demand (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections) (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections)Yes – can debug code via chat (e.g. fix Next.js API errors) (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel); keeps context of recent edits to refine functionality
Claude (Anthropic)Any language (not IDE-specific); massive context (100k+ tokens) for large codebases (I’ve used Cursor with claude, and Cline with DeepSeek v2.5, Gemini …) (Claude vs ChatGPT: Guide to Choosing the Best AI Tool)API: ~$11 per million tokens (Claude 2); Claude.ai chat free (limited uses)AI assistant via chat (web or API); no native IDE plugin (integrations via third-party tools possible)Low – no built-in automation (user must copy code in/out); focuses on answering and generating code on requestYes – excellent for code review and analyzing large projects or logs (Claude vs ChatGPT: Guide to Choosing the Best AI Tool); may require iterative prompts for complex fixes (can be verbose) (Okay yes, Claude is better than ChatGPT for now : r/OpenAI)
ChatGPT CanvasAny (supports editing code in various languages; can preview HTML/CSS/JS outputs) (What is the canvas feature in ChatGPT and how do I use it?)Included in ChatGPT Plus ($20/mo); (Free version has limited Canvas functionality) (My biggest issue with the new “ChatGPT with Canvas” when coding – Bugs – OpenAI Developer Community)ChatGPT with an editor: multi-file canvas where AI and user co-edit code (What is the canvas feature in ChatGPT and how do I use it?); UI for file tree and web preview in-browserLow – not autonomous; assists with code completion and refactoring upon user prompts (no auto-execution)Yes – great for step-by-step code fixes and review in one interface; can debug by running preview for web apps. Note: early beta had issues with large scripts and context resets (My biggest issue with the new “ChatGPT with Canvas” when coding – Bugs – OpenAI Developer Community)
Roo (Roo Code)Multiple (VS Code supports any language; model-agnostic – works with OpenAI, DeepSeek, etc.) (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!) (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.)Free (open-source VS Code extension); bring your own model API key (OpenAI, etc.) (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.)VS Code extension with in-editor chat, code action lightbulbs, and custom “Modes” for different roles (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.) (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.)High – autonomous coding agent that reads/writes files, runs terminal commands, and even controls a browser (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.)Yes – can execute code/tests via terminal and refine results; offers quick-fix suggestions (integrates with VS Code Code Actions for refactoring) (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.)

Table 1: Overview of programming language support, pricing, integrations, automation, and debugging features of each AI coding tool.

Tool Categories by Skill Level

Different tools cater to different experience levels. Here’s how they break down by target skill level:

Beginner-Friendly Tools (No Coding Experience or New Programmers)

  • Lovable: Designed so “anyone” can build an app by describing it (Lovable). Ideal for non-technical founders, product designers, or beginners exploring coding. It handles the heavy lifting (front-end, design, and backend integration) automatically. Use case: Quickly prototyping web apps without writing code.
  • Replit Agent: Aims to make full-stack development “accessible to everyone” (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel). New coders can describe an idea (e.g. “a to-do list app”) and the agent generates and deploys it (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent). Great for learners to see working code and for hobbyists who want results fast. (Be ready to guide it if it gets stuck in a loop.)
  • Windsurf: Very approachable interface – “polished and approachable, especially if you’re new to AI coding tools” (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). It emphasizes simplicity: auto-selecting relevant files and requiring minimal setup. Beginners can just “ask for a feature” and Windsurf implements it. Use case: Learning to code with an AI pair programmer that doesn’t overwhelm with options.
  • v0.dev (Vercel): Though powerful for pros, Vercel’s v0 is pitched so “anyone can participate in prototyping… regardless of technical abilities.” (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel) Non-developers can build a modern Next.js website through conversation. Its guidance (and safety in producing valid code) makes it friendly for novices who have never set up a web project.
  • ChatGPT Canvas (Beta): For those familiar with ChatGPT but not professional coders, Canvas provides a more intuitive way to work on coding tasks. You can see and edit the code with the AI rather than just copy-pasting. It’s useful for beginners to practice coding with immediate AI help on the same “canvas.” (Note: It may still require some coding intuition to know what to ask for.)

Intermediate Developers (Some Experience, Looking to Boost Productivity)

  • Cursor: An excellent “pair-programming partner” (Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game) for those who know how to code but want to code faster. Intermediate devs can leverage Cursor’s chat and smart autocomplete to implement features quickly, while still reviewing AI changes (Cursor encourages you to inspect diffs for each change (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?)). If you understand your codebase, Cursor will help you navigate and refactor it with natural language commands.
  • ChatGPT Canvas: For developers who already use ChatGPT or other LLMs in their workflow, Canvas is a step up – it merges an IDE-like feel with ChatGPT’s intelligence. It’s great for mid-level devs to collaboratively debug or generate code in situ. For example, you can paste a function and ask Canvas to optimize it, and you’ll both see the code evolve. It requires understanding of coding concepts to validate the AI’s suggestions.
  • Claude: While Claude can be used by beginners for Q&A, intermediate programmers often get the most out of it. They know how to structure prompts to have Claude review large swaths of code or produce scripts. Claude is very capable when given clear instructions, but it might need a user with some coding know-how to break tasks into steps. (In other words, an intermediate user can manage Claude’s tendency to sometimes wander by steering it.)
  • Windsurf: (Again) Although Windsurf is beginner-friendly, it scales well to intermediate use. Those with some experience will appreciate its agentic mode to automate tasks, while still being able to switch to manual if they want more control. Intermediate devs can use Windsurf’s high-level guidance and then fine-tune the code themselves.

Advanced/Expert Developers (Seasoned Coders, Looking for Powerful Tools)

  • Cursor (Power Use): Advanced users love Cursor for its depth of control. It essentially gives you GPT-4/Claude in a VS Code-like environment. You can manually craft prompts that involve multiple files and review every suggested diff. This suits experienced devs who want precision and have larger projects (Cursor can handle ~20k tokens context, which helps with big codebases (Context in Cursor – Discussion – Cursor – Community Forum)). It’s a “power tool” that might overwhelm a newbie but empowers an expert.
  • Roo Code: Roo is highly customizable and open – perfect for advanced developers. It even lets you create custom AI “modes” (like a dedicated QA engineer mode) and integrate any model API (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.) (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.). This requires understanding how to configure models and trust running AI agents on your code. Advanced users can tweak Roo’s prompts and even contribute to its open-source code. If you like to self-host and experiment (and don’t mind occasional rough edges in exchange for flexibility (The AI Coding Assistant Showdown: Is “You Get What You Pay For …)), Roo is for you.
  • Bolt.new: This is aimed at experienced devs who “know what they’re doing and just want a quick starting point” (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). It generates code extremely fast, but “assumes you’ll polish the edges yourself” (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). If you’re a seasoned programmer, you can take Bolt.new’s boilerplate and then manually fix or extend it. Less experienced users might be thrown off by the minimal guidance and sparse comments. Advanced users, however, often prefer that speed and minimalism, treating Bolt as a rapid bootstrap tool.
  • Bolt.diy: Even more so for experts – you need to set it up, manage API keys, maybe even modify the code. It’s a community-driven project that “is more suited to a developer or someone wanting to learn and push the boundaries” (Can someone tell me why is bolt.diy better than bolt.new ? : r/boltnewbuilders). Expect to troubleshoot on your own. The payoff for experts is complete control over the AI backend (you can hook up new models, adjust prompts, etc.), which can be incredibly powerful if you know what you’re doing.
  • Claude: Advanced developers may leverage Claude’s enormous context window to do things like feed in an entire code repository for analysis or ask it to draft complex algorithms. They will also know how to cope when Claude’s output isn’t perfect – e.g., by carefully specifying the format or breaking a task into sub-tasks. In skilled hands, Claude can handle tasks that overwhelm other models (like reviewing thousands of lines of code at once).
  • Replit Agent: While aimed at making coding easy, advanced devs can use it to automate tedious setup and then dive into the code. For example, an expert could have the agent scaffold a project, then take over when fine-tuning complex logic. Advanced users are also better at recognizing when the agent is faltering (e.g., an infinite loop of bug fixes) and can intervene or correct course. Replit’s flexibility (one can always open the shell or code editor to manually adjust) means experts can seamlessly blend automation with their own expertise.

Tool Categories by Use Case

Many of these platforms overlap in functionality, but each has strengths in particular use cases. Here’s a breakdown:

  • General AI-Assisted Coding (Any Language or Project): If you want an AI to help with a variety of coding tasks (from writing snippets to explaining code) across different languages, ChatGPT (with or without Canvas) and Claude are broad, model-first options. Cursor and Windsurf also fall in this category, but they shine particularly when used as coding environments. For quick Q&A, brainstorming, or small code generation tasks, ChatGPT (GPT-4) is extremely versatile (Claude vs ChatGPT: Guide to Choosing the Best AI Tool) and remains the go-to for many developers. Claude is similarly versatile, and its advantage is handling bigger contexts (like loading multiple files or long documentation) – “use Claude for large-scale code reviews and complex project management” (Claude vs ChatGPT: Guide to Choosing the Best AI Tool), as one guide suggests. In contrast, environment-based tools (Cursor, Windsurf, Roo) are great when you plan to spend your whole day coding with AI continuously at your side.
  • Pair Programming & Code Completion: For an AI that works alongside you as you write code (like a true pair programmer or an advanced autocompletion engine), Cursor and Windsurf are top choices. Both provide real-time code suggestions and allow chatting about your codebase. Cursor’s integration into a VS Code-like interface means as you type, it can suggest the next lines or even entire functions (similar to GitHub Copilot, but with a chat on steroids). Windsurf’s approach is to keep the UI uncluttered and jump in when you need it – by default it’s in an “Agentic” chat mode that actively helps implement changes you ask for (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). Replit’s Ghostwriter (part of Replit’s AI, separate from the Agent) and Codeium (the engine behind Windsurf) also excel here – they hook into the editor to autocomplete code in real-time. ChatGPT Canvas is a new contender in pair-programming: it’s not an IDE plugin but gives a similar feel by letting you and the AI edit a file together. If you prefer coding in VS Code, Roo Code extension or GitHub Copilot (not in our main list) can provide inline suggestions and even handle multi-step tasks via chat. In summary, for “I write a bit, the AI writes a bit” workflow, look to Cursor, Windsurf, Roo, Copilot, or Canvas.
  • Debugging and Error Fixing: When it comes to debugging, some tools actively run your code and debug for you, while others assist by analyzing errors you provide. Replit Agent literally runs your program (in a sandbox) and can pinpoint runtime errors, then attempt to fix them in subsequent iterations – acting like a tireless junior dev who keeps running and fixing until tests pass. Bolt.new/DIY have a similar approach: they generate code, execute it (for example, running a dev server or script), detect issues, and then say “Oops, hit an error, let me fix that” automatically (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!). This automated debug loop is a game-changer for quickly getting a mostly-working prototype, though it can sometimes get stuck oscillating between two errors (as some users reported with Bolt.new) (Can someone tell me why is bolt.diy better than bolt.new ? : r/boltnewbuilders). On the other hand, tools like Cursor and Windsurf assist debugging by giving you the answers or fixes when you ask. Cursor can utilize its context to answer questions like “Why is this function failing?” or to refactor code to be more robust. Windsurf’s agent can run tests (you can prompt “run the tests” and it will use the terminal) and then adjust code if tests fail. Claude and ChatGPT (and Canvas) are extremely useful for debugging logic or algorithmic issues – if you paste an error trace or a problematic code snippet, they’ll explain the bug and suggest a fix. Claude’s large memory means you can dump a long log file or multiple modules for it to analyze. One caution: ChatGPT and Claude won’t run your code, so their help is only as good as the information you give. In contrast, Replit Agent, Bolt, and Roo actually execute code, meaning they can catch runtime issues that static analysis might miss (e.g. environment configuration problems).
  • Automation & Full Project Generation: If your goal is to go from idea to working application with minimal manual coding, the most suitable tools are Lovable, Replit Agent, Bolt.new/Bolt.diy, and v0.dev. These act more like an “AI software engineer” or an AutoGPT-style agent specialized for coding. Lovable can “build your entire frontend in one prompt” and even set up databases and auth (with Supabase) for you (Lovable) (Lovable). It’s geared towards quickly launching web products – great for founders prototyping an app in a day. Replit Agent is similar but more general: it can create anything that Replit can host (web apps, Discord bots, you name it) and deploy it. Replit Agent was described as “like having an entire team of software engineers on demand” (Replit Agent & Assistant) – you tell it what you want, and it figures out the stack, writes the code, and (sometimes with some human help) gets it running live. Bolt.new was one of the early examples of this concept, focused on web apps: you describe a project and it “bolts” together a full stack app, running it in a browser container so you can instantly see and use it. It even handles deploying to hosts like Netlify/Vercel (for Bolt.new) or you can export the code. Bolt.diy allows this with the added flexibility of using any large language model – so if you want to use a local LLM or a specific API (for cost or privacy reasons), you can. The trade-off is more setup work for you. v0.dev from Vercel specifically targets UI prototyping and uses known best practices (Next.js + Tailwind). It’s like telling a very experienced frontend developer/designer team what you need – “describe the interface you want to build” – and getting a beautiful React codebase generated (v0.dev – Future Tools). All these tools automate not just coding but also project setup and (in some cases) deployment. That said, none are magic: the clearer and more structured your requirements, the better the outcome. And complex, unique business logic will still require human intervention. But for boilerplate, standard CRUD apps, or common app features, these automation-centric tools can save days or weeks of effort.
  • Codebase Understanding and Refactoring: If you already have an existing codebase and want an AI to help understand or improve it (rather than create new code from scratch), consider Cursor, Claude, Roo, or Codeium. Cursor and Roo can load your project files and answer questions like “Where is the function that does X?” or “Rename this variable across the codebase,” acting as intelligent IDE assistants with search and refactor capabilities (Cursor (code editor) – Wikipedia) (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.). Claude’s 100k context shines here: you can literally paste huge chunks of code or config and ask it to document or refactor them. One user noted Claude “absolutely nailed” some tasks that GPT-4 was hallucinating on (Okay yes, Claude is better than ChatGPT for now : r/OpenAI) (Okay yes, Claude is better than ChatGPT for now : r/OpenAI), thanks to its training and perhaps larger window. For systematic refactoring or ensuring consistency, these tools can be invaluable. ChatGPT (GPT-4) is also decent at this if you feed it parts of your code in stages.
  • Documentation and Learning: Many of these tools double as learning aids. If you’re picking up a new language or framework, ChatGPT/Claude are like tutors – ask anything. Cursor has a feature where you can highlight code and ask for explanation or documentation, which is great for learning on the fly (Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game). Windsurf can also answer “what does this code do?” in chat, and because it’s geared to be beginner-friendly, it often provides clear explanations. Tools with chat interfaces (Canvas, Replit’s Assistant, etc.) can generate README files, docstrings, or even lessons (for example, you can ask “explain Redux to me with an analogy” and they’ll gladly do so). In user communities, people have praised Claude for more “human-like” or creative explanations, and ChatGPT for precise, step-by-step ones – so depending on your learning style you might prefer one or the other (Okay yes, Claude is better than ChatGPT for now : r/OpenAI).

Now that we’ve compared categories, let’s dive into each tool for more details, including user feedback and prompting tips.

Detailed Insights by Tool

Cursor – The AI-First Code Editor

Overview: Cursor is a fork of Visual Studio Code transformed into an AI-first IDE (Cursor (code editor) – Wikipedia). It integrates large language models (GPT-4 and Anthropic Claude) to assist with writing and refactoring code. You can chat with Cursor about your codebase, use it to generate new functions, or autocomplete your code as you type. It supports Windows, macOS, Linux and is developed by Anysphere Inc. (YCombinator-backed). Cursor retains all the familiar VS Code features (terminal, extension support) but adds AI superpowers on top.

Key Features:

  • Code Generation & Modification: You can highlight a function or file and describe changes, and Cursor will apply them. For example, “Optimize this function’s performance” or “Add error handling to this block”. It uses GPT-4 or Claude to generate the diff. One unique aspect is it always presents the changes as a diff that you approve, which encourages reviewing AI output (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?).
  • Chat with Full Context: Cursor’s side-panel chat can access your entire workspace context (up to the limits). Users have noted that it can consider your “entire codebase” when answering questions, something they found lacking in tools like Copilot (Anyone using Cursor AI and barely writing any code? Anything better than Cursor AI ? : r/ChatGPTCoding). A Reddit user raved: “If a tool can’t look at my entire context… I got rid of Copilot.” They felt “coding has changed forever” with Cursor, since they can focus on high-level intent and let the AI fill in syntax (Anyone using Cursor AI and barely writing any code? Anything better than Cursor AI ? : r/ChatGPTCoding).
  • Smart Autocomplete: Like Copilot, Cursor offers inline code completions. It uses model predictions to suggest the next few lines or entire block as you’re typing. Completions can span multiple lines and are informed by the conversation and file content.
  • Codebase Q&A: You can ask questions in plain English about your project. e.g. “Where is the user authentication handled?” or “Explain how this algorithm works.” Cursor will search and aggregate info from your code to answer. It’s leveraging the LLM’s ability to do semantic search over the text of your repository. This is incredibly useful for unfamiliar or large codebases – it’s like having the original developer sitting next to you to answer questions.
  • Refactoring and Bulk Edits: Cursor has a “smart rewrite” feature (Cursor (code editor) – Wikipedia). You can, for example, ask it to rename a variable across all files, or convert all your var to let/const in a JS codebase. Because it understands code, it does this more intelligently than simple find-replace (avoiding comments, etc.).

Integrations: Being a VS Code fork, it supports most VS Code extensions and themes (Cursor (code editor) – Wikipedia). That means you can still use GitLens, Docker integration, linters, etc. It also means the UI/UX is very familiar to VS Code users – the learning curve is low. You do need an OpenAI or Anthropic API key (for the free version, it will use your own keys). The Pro subscription includes usage of Cursor’s hosted models (Claude 3.5 “Sonnet” and GPT-4) so you don’t need separate API keys (Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game).

Pricing: Free tier (Hobby) gives you a limited number of code generations per day (e.g. 100 completions/day and some Chat uses – exact limits may change) (Windsurf vs Cursor: A Detailed Comparison and Why Startups Are …). The Pro tier at $20/month removes these limits and gives you access to the more advanced models (GPT-4, Claude) for unlimited use (Cursor vs GitHub Copilot – Builder.io). There is also a $40/month Business tier with team features. Some initially balked at the $20 price tag (double Copilot’s price) (Cursor has a problem, and it’s not just the price – Medium), but keep in mind it’s effectively covering usage of two LLMs (and it’s still far less than hiring an engineer or even the raw API costs if you heavily use GPT-4). A Medium article did call the price “controversial”, but many users think it’s “def worth the money” (Scam alert: ghost changes to Agent pricing : r/replit) for the productivity gained.

User Reviews – Pros: Users on Reddit often praise Cursor’s ability to handle larger contexts than Copilot. It “looks at my entire project” and thus can do things like coordinate changes across files or recall relevant code from elsewhere in the app, which surprised people used to more limited tools (Anyone using Cursor AI and barely writing any code? Anything better than Cursor AI ? : r/ChatGPTCoding). It’s also noted as being “fast and familiar” since it behaves much like VS Code (Cursor – The AI Code Editor). The quality of suggestions (being powered by GPT-4 or Claude) is generally excellent – often more insightful or correct than standard code completions. Many enjoy the feeling of a true pair programmer: “I find myself just asking it to do things and it does exactly what I want”, one user said (Anyone using Cursor AI and barely writing any code? Anything better than Cursor AI ? : r/ChatGPTCoding). For those using it, it can significantly speed up tasks like writing boilerplate, documentation, test cases, or doing tedious refactors. Another positive: because you can see diffs and have to approve them, it enforces a good habit of code review, catching any AI mistakes before they hit your codebase.

User Reviews – Cons: The biggest downsides reported: 1) Memory/Context limits. While better than some, it’s not infinite. In practice ~20k tokens of context are used in chat (Context in Cursor – Discussion – Cursor – Community Forum) (even if Claude could do 100k, Cursor currently caps it for performance). Very large projects may still require chunking or manual focus. Users noticed that sometimes it would lose track of details if the conversation got long – “Occasional context ‘forgetfulness’ after breaks” is mentioned (Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game). 2) Pricing. $20/mo is a barrier for some, especially hobby devs, considering free alternatives exist (like VS Code + ChatGPT copy-paste). However, there is a free trial and free tier to try it out. 3) Model Quirks. Cursor is ultimately a UI on top of GPT/Claude. If the underlying model has a quirk (like GPT-4 sometimes being overly verbose or Claude sometimes refusing certain requests), those show up in Cursor. One Medium post pointed out controversies like using primarily sources from Cursor’s own forum for Wikipedia (which was criticized) (Cursor (code editor) – Wikipedia) – but that’s not about the tool’s functionality, rather an external observation. 4) It being a standalone IDE means you have to switch from your current environment (if you’re not already a VS Code user, that could be disruptive). And because it’s a fork, occasionally it lags behind VS Code updates or has minor bugs not present in stock VS Code (e.g., some users reported issues with keybindings or settings sync). The dev team is active though, and updates are frequent.

Technical Details: Cursor uses a combination of models. For small completions (like a quick inline suggestion), it might use faster, smaller models (possibly OpenAI’s code-cushman or similar) to keep latency low (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). For the heavy lifting in chat or major code edits, it uses Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 (code-named “Sonnet”) and OpenAI’s GPT-4 (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). In fact, the builder.io blog humorously unmasked that both Cursor and Windsurf have “the same brain” (Claude) behind the scenes (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). This means raw generation quality will be similar between those two – the difference is in how you interact with it. Cursor also can integrate with your own API keys: if you have access to GPT-4 32k or Claude 100k, you could plug those in and potentially get larger context windows in Cursor’s chat (though the UI might still impose some limits as noted).

Prompting Tips (Cursor):

  • Utilize File Context: Before asking Cursor’s chat about a piece of code, open that file or section in the editor. Cursor automatically includes the open files in the prompt context. For example, “Explain what this function does” will be much more effective if the function is visible to the AI (opened/highlighted) – it will pull directly from it rather than from memory.
  • Iterate with Composer: Cursor has a “Composer” panel where you can write a prompt and explicitly add files to it (via checkboxes). For complex requests (like “refactor these 3 files to use hooks instead of classes”), use Composer to include all relevant files. This manual inclusion gives you more control over context than the chat’s auto mode.
  • Leverage Natural Language in Code Edits: Don’t hold back on detail when describing an edit. For instance, “In UserService.js, add a new method `resetPassword(email)` that sends a password reset link. Use the Mailer class. Ensure to handle the case where email is not found by throwing UserNotFoundError.” The more precise you are, the better the code result. Cursor is good at following multi-step instructions in one go (Cursor AI: The AI-powered code editor changing the game).
  • Ask for Explanations: If Cursor generates code and you’re not sure how it works, you can highlight the code and ask “Can you add comments explaining this?” or “Explain this logic.” This is great for learning and verifying. Cursor can even output a markdown explanation in the chat, citing specific lines of the code – effectively giving you mini-documentation.
  • Use “//TODO” and comments for guidance: A neat trick: write a //TODO: ... comment in your code and then ask Cursor to fill it. E.g., in code write // TODO: Validate the input data then ask Cursor to complete the function. It will see the TODO and often directly address it. This anchors the AI on specific tasks.
  • Switch Models if Needed: If you find generation is slow or too verbose with GPT-4, you can switch to Claude (or vice versa) in settings for different behavior. Claude might give more commentary, GPT-4 might give more compact code – depending on what you prefer, try both. (Pro users can choose models; free tier might default to GPT-3.5 which is less capable for complex tasks.)
  • Review Diff and Test: After Cursor makes changes, always review the diff (which it shows automatically) – this is where you catch if it did something unintended. Then run your tests or app. A powerful workflow is: write a new feature with Cursor’s help, then if any test fails, copy the failing test output into Cursor and ask for a fix. Because Cursor remembers the code it just wrote, it often zeroes in on the bug quickly. This tight loop can drastically speed up debugging.

Windsurf – Simple and Smart AI IDE

Overview: Windsurf is another AI-powered IDE, created by the team behind Codeium (popular free code completion tool). Think of Windsurf as an alternative to Cursor with a greater emphasis on simplicity and “just work” defaults. It’s a standalone app (currently in beta) that supports many languages and use cases, but has especially strong web development support. It introduces an agent called “Cascade” that can perform multi-step coding tasks autonomously.

Key Features:

  • Beginner-Friendly Design: Windsurf’s UI is often praised for its clean and minimal approach. Reviewers describe it as “comparing an Apple product to a Microsoft one” – Windsurf being the Apple in this analogy (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). It doesn’t overwhelm you with panels or options. For example, it doesn’t show an inline diff for every change by default (unlike Cursor). Instead, changes are applied directly, and you can click an “Open Diff” button if you want to see them (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). This keeps the focus on coding rather than managing the tool. The learning curve for basic use is extremely low.
  • Cascade Agent (Auto Mode): The flagship feature. Cascade is an “AI agent” that, when activated (or in certain modes by default), will do things for you automatically. For instance, if you say “Add a login form to the homepage”, Cascade will: figure out which files need to change (maybe create a new Login.jsx, modify App.jsx, add a CSS file, etc.), make those changes, possibly run the development server or tests to verify, and present the results. It’s as if you had a junior dev that not only writes code but also knows to run the app and see if it’s working. This agentic behavior means you don’t have to manually instruct the AI on every step – it tries to infer and execute the steps. Windsurf was “pushing for high-level, simple interactions”, letting the AI handle details like which files to open (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?).
  • Two Modes – Chat vs Write: Windsurf provides distinct modes for the agent: Chat mode and Write mode (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025)). In Chat mode, it behaves like a Q&A assistant, explaining code or discussing without making changes. In Write mode, it actively writes to your files to implement what you ask. This separation is useful: if you just want advice or to brainstorm, use Chat. If you want it to actually do the coding, use Write. Users found this context switching intuitive.
  • Inline Autocomplete (Codeium): Given it’s by Codeium, Windsurf has excellent autocomplete as you type, covering 70+ languages (Codeium’s model was trained on many languages) (Windsurf Editor and Codeium extensions). So, even without invoking the chat or agent, you get suggestions similar to Copilot. Many developers use Codeium for free and found it “equivalent, if not better” than Copilot for many tasks (Windsurf Editor and Codeium extensions), so Windsurf basically bundles that capability.
  • Multi-File Aware: Like Cursor, Windsurf can handle context from multiple files. The difference is Windsurf often auto-selects context. So you don’t always have to tell it “include these files” – Cascade tries to determine what’s relevant. For example, if you ask for a change that involves the front-end and back-end, Windsurf might fetch both the frontend file and backend route file automatically. This is built on Codeium’s full-repo analysis features (they boast “full repo context awareness”) (Windsurf Editor and Codeium extensions).
  • Terminal Integration: Windsurf has a terminal where it (or you) can run commands (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025)). The agent might use this to run tests (npm test) or start the app (npm run dev) based on what you ask. It’s integrated so that if errors show up in the terminal, Windsurf can catch them. In the feature list from greptile, “Terminal integration ✓” and “Full codebase context ✓” are checked for Windsurf (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025)).
  • Self-Hosted Option: Windsurf allows self-host (because Codeium has an on-premise offering). While not open source, enterprise users can run it internally. For individual advanced users, this means you could in theory point Windsurf to use local models if you have Codeium’s enterprise version. But most will use the hosted version with internet.

Integrations: Currently, Windsurf is a standalone application (like an IDE). It’s built by the Codeium team, and codeium has plugins for many IDEs (VS Code, JetBrains, etc.), but Windsurf itself is separate. You don’t need to install Codeium plugin – it’s built-in. There’s mention that it integrates with VS Code and PyCharm (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital) – likely meaning you can import/export projects easily or that the Codeium engine connects with those IDEs. (Possibly the reviewer meant he used Windsurf alongside those IDEs seamlessly.) In any case, Windsurf is primarily meant to be your coding environment on its own.

Pricing: The Windsurf Editor is free to use in beta as of now. The company’s pricing model, as gleaned from their docs, is expected to be $15/seat for Pro (which is a bit cheaper than Cursor) (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). They also hinted at some credit system – “model flow action credits” – which was confusing to the author (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). This suggests there might be a usage cap (like X automated actions per month) for a given price, but details aren’t crystal clear publicly. For now, Codeium’s philosophy has been offering a lot for free (their core completion is free). It wouldn’t be surprising if a lot of Windsurf functionality remains free with some limits, and paid plans remove limits or give enterprise features.

User Reviews – Pros: Many developers have been impressed by Windsurf’s ease of use. One comment: “If I were to start out coding today, Windsurf would be a great choice.” (Windsurf vs. Cursor – which AI coding app is better? – Prompt Warrior) It doesn’t require complex prompt engineering – you can be fairly high-level. For example, “Create a Django model for a Blog with title, content, published_date”, and Windsurf will do it straightforwardly. Users like that it “won’t clutter the UI with buttons and code diffs everywhere” (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?) – it feels fluid and not distracting. Also, because it defaults to doing things for you (Agentic “Write” mode), it’s very efficient for rapid prototyping. Start typing what you want in plain English, hit enter, and watch code appear in multiple files like magic. The Claude model under the hood is known for being verbose in explanations, but Windsurf manages to keep it concise in code writing. The quality of generated code is generally praised: a Fuel Your Digital review noted “the results were clean and included helpful comments explaining the logic” when using Windsurf on tasks like a Django model or Express API (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital) (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). Also, error rate seemed low: it often provided correct code or at least multiple suggestions to choose from (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). The same review highlighted how Windsurf “adapted immediately” when they specified to use TypeScript instead of JavaScript (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital) – showcasing that it respects user preferences well. In comparisons, Windsurf often gets props for being faster or more lightweight than some competitors. Its underlying models are optimized (Claude-instant or Codeium models), making response time snappy.

User Reviews – Cons: As a newer tool, Windsurf is less mature in some areas. Early users have encountered minor bugs (some reported issues with the agent stopping or needing a reset in long sessions – typical beta hiccups). Because it tries to simplify, a power user might find it too restrictive at times. For instance, automatic context means you have less manual control than Cursor; an advanced user might want to force include a file that Windsurf didn’t pick up. At the moment, Windsurf doesn’t support as many IDE extensions (since it’s not VS Code-based, you can’t just install any plugin). Another limitation: lack of documentation or community size compared to something like VS Code + Copilot or even Cursor. Being new, if you run into an issue, you might not find an immediate solution on forums (though Codeium’s forum/Discord likely covers Windsurf now). In terms of output, one could nitpick that sometimes the agent might “over-do” things – e.g., because it doesn’t show diffs by default, it might change something you didn’t anticipate, and you’d only notice by testing (or clicking diff after the fact). Some users might prefer the always-review approach of Cursor for that reason. As for performance, running a Claude model can be memory heavy – ensure you have a decent system to run the app (similar to running VS Code with Copilot).

One more con: context limit. While not often mentioned, the builder.io article implies Windsurf also uses Claude 3.5 with similar limitations to Cursor (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). If you ask it to consider a huge codebase, it may not truly load everything at once, rather a subset relevant to your prompt. In practice, this is usually fine, but extremely large projects might still stump it or require you to break tasks down.

Technical Details: Windsurf uses Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic) as the main model for its agent and chat (Windsurf vs Cursor: which is the better AI code editor?). It likely also uses Codeium’s own smaller models for quick completions. Codeium’s models are specialized for code and known to support fill-in-the-middle and multi-line completion (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025)). The greptile comparison noted “GPT-4o, Claude 3.5” under Windsurf and “Claude 3.5, GPT-4o” under Replit (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025)), suggesting Windsurf can access OpenAI’s GPT-4 (“o” perhaps meaning openAI) as well. It’s possible Windsurf might let you configure different models in the future (currently, it might be fixed to Claude by default). Windsurf also boasts “Usage analytics ✓” (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025)) – meaning if you’re a team lead, you could see how the AI is being used by your team (helpful in enterprise scenarios to track productivity or detect misuse).

Prompting Tips (Windsurf):

  • Use High-Level Instructions: Windsurf’s Cascade agent thrives on fairly general tasks. Don’t feel you must spell out every step. For example, “Add pagination to the users list API and frontend”. In Cursor or ChatGPT, that single sentence might be too high-level (they’d ask for clarifications or only do part of it). Windsurf will attempt to do it end-to-end: modify backend route, adjust frontend, maybe even add a “Next page” button. High-level prompts = less micromanaging.
  • Switch to Chat for Clarifications: If Windsurf does something and you’re not sure why, or you wanted a different approach, switch to Chat mode and talk about it. E.g., “I noticed you used library X for pagination, can we do it without that library?” In Chat mode it won’t change the code, but will discuss. Then you can say “Okay, please implement that change” and switch back to Write mode or just allow it if Chat suggests it.
  • Let It Index First: On first opening a project in Windsurf, especially a larger one, give it a moment to index the code (it might do this automatically). If you start prompting too quickly, it might not have loaded all context. A good practice is to open the project, maybe open a couple key files manually (this hints to the tool what’s important), and then start with a simple query like “list all major components in this project” – something to warm up the context engine.
  • Be Specific in Write Mode Prompts: Although you can be high-level, it helps to mention the outcome or constraints. For instance, “Add a login form (with email & password fields) to the homepage. Use Bootstrap styles.” This ensures it doesn’t choose a styling framework you don’t want. Or “Implement caching for the getUser API (cache for 5 minutes)”. If you just said “implement caching”, it might pick an approach you didn’t intend.
  • Use “Open Diff” to learn: After Windsurf’s agent makes changes, click the Open Diff to see exactly what it did. This is both for code review (catch mistakes) and for learning from the AI’s implementation. If something looks off, you can copy that diff and paste into Chat mode asking “Why did you do this?” or “Is there a bug here?” Windsurf will explain or fix.
  • Control Scope with File-Specific Prompts: If you want to ensure the AI only touches a certain area, mention the file or component name in your prompt. E.g., “In Sidebar.jsx, add a logout button that calls the logout API.” That way it won’t roam into unrelated files. If you just said “Add a logout button to the app”, it might add it somewhere in the nav or header that you didn’t expect.
  • Leverage Test Generation: Windsurf can generate tests for you (one of its listed features (Windsurf vs. Replit: Comparing AI Code Generation tools (2025))). Prompt it: “Write unit tests for the UserService using Jest”. It will create a test file with a suite of tests. Writing tests is a great way to validate what was generated – and Windsurf doing it for you saves time. If the tests fail, that’s immediate feedback for the AI to fix the code.
  • Prompt for Alternatives: If you’re not happy with a solution Windsurf gave, you can ask, “Can you show another approach?” Because it often can produce multiple suggestions (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital), you can sometimes cycle through options. Alternatively, edit the code a bit yourself and then ask Windsurf to refine it. This human-AI collaboration can yield a better result than either alone.

Bolt.new – Rapid App Builder (Hosted)

Overview: Bolt.new is an AI tool that generates full-stack web applications in minutes. It’s part of the StackBlitz family (StackBlitz Labs), which is known for running Node.js apps entirely in-browser. Bolt.new leverages this to not only write code but also run and deploy it. It’s a closed-source, hosted service (with a web interface at bolt.new). Think of Bolt.new as an “AI engineer in the cloud” – you tell it what you want, and it will scaffold a project, write code for front-end and back-end, set up a database or APIs as needed, and get everything running.

Key Features:

  • End-to-End Project Generation: Bolt.new doesn’t just generate a snippet or a single file; it can create an entire project structure. For example, if you ask for a “To-Do app,” it will create a backend (maybe Node/Express or a simple in-memory server), a frontend (likely using a framework or plain HTML/JS), and tie them together. It populates package.json, installs dependencies, etc. Essentially it automates the “npm init + coding” process. One user mentioned it “delivered fast, concise snippets each time” for tasks like setting up a Flask API, a TypeScript module, etc. (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). That shows it isn’t limited to one tech stack – it did Python Flask for them and TS for another case.
  • Live Development & Preview: Because it runs in the browser (courtesy of StackBlitz WebContainer tech), you actually get a live preview of the running app as it’s being built. Bolt.new will execute commands like starting a dev server or compiling, and you can see the app in an embedded window. This is powerful: you immediately see what the AI is building. If there’s an error or the app crashes, Bolt.new detects that from the terminal logs.
  • Automated Debug Loop: Bolt.new’s standout aspect is how it handles errors. If the app crashes or a command fails, it catches the error message and then prompts itself (through the AI) to fix it (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!). For example, if it forgot to import a module and the app throws “ModuleNotFoundError”, Bolt will see that in the log and say (paraphrasing), “I noticed an error about X. I will fix that.” Then it edits the code or package.json to fix. This loop continues until the app runs without errors or it hits a limit. This is essentially an autonomous cycle: write code - run - if error, debug - run again. Early demos of Bolt showed it solving quite complex setups via this method.
  • Full-Stack Focus: Bolt.new specifically handles full-stack apps – meaning it can generate both client and server code. It often chooses a stack for you unless you specify. By default, for web apps, it might pick a JS/Node framework (Express, Next.js, etc.) and possibly a front-end library (React or simple static HTML). It can also do standalone backends or scripts on request. The user review we saw had them ask for a Flask (Python) API and it did it, which shows Bolt is not limited to JS. But Node/JS is the native environment StackBlitz runs, so it likely spins up a Node container even to run Python (maybe via Pyodide or some trick).
  • Collaboration & Sharing: Bolt.new allows you to share the project with others easily (since it’s online). You can invite collaborators to the live session or share a preview link. This is handy for getting quick feedback on the generated app.
  • VS Code Integration: According to one review, “It works well with VS Code and other lightweight editors” (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). Likely this means you can export or sync the project to local, or possibly that Bolt.new has an option to open the project in VS Code via VSCode’s web embedding (StackBlitz often lets you open in VS Code or similar). In any case, you’re not locked in – you can always download the code as a ZIP or push to GitHub from Bolt.new.

Integrations & Tech: Bolt.new is web-based – you access it through a browser. It’s integrated with Vercel for deployment (there was mention of deploying to similar platforms) (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!). It uses OpenAI models behind the scenes (likely GPT-4 for complex tasks, GPT-3.5 for simpler ones, though they also experimented with Google’s Gemini per some references, but no public info yet). It’s closed source, and heavy lifting happens on their servers (the AI generation), while code execution happens in your browser (StackBlitz WebContainer running Node.js). This means your code doesn’t leave your browser when running (nice for privacy of execution), but the prompts and generated code do go to the AI API on their server side.

Pricing: Bolt.new had a token-based pricing model. They offered some free tokens to start (for example, free users might get enough credits to build a small app). After that, you’d purchase token packages. Tokens correspond to AI compute (not to be confused with language model tokens – more like credits). One user mentioned “people say it’s expensive. …I’ve paid for 2 months, but it’s already made me several MVPs which are earning 10x what the tokens cost” (Can someone tell me why is bolt.diy better than bolt.new ? : r/boltnewbuilders) – indicating that for serious users it paid off. StackBlitz likely will refine the pricing; it could end up as subscription or a hybrid (a subscription that gives X credits). But as of now, think of it as paying for what you use: complex projects use more credits.

User Reviews – Pros: Users are wowed by the speed. “It’s like having a lightning-fast assistant,” one review said (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). Bolt.new can produce a scaffold of an app in seconds that might take a developer hours to set up. Another pro is time saved on boilerplate: It “nails boilerplate code for routing or a quick start” (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). Experienced devs appreciate that because they can skip the boring setup and jump to customizing unique parts. Also, Bolt’s independence is noted: it respects your time by not asking a million questions – it tries to do the right thing automatically (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). For instance, it won’t prompt you “Which database do you want?” unless necessary; it might just choose SQLite for simplicity if you didn’t specify. Many found that it works great for small-to-medium projects where the requirements are common (dashboards, basic CRUD, simple APIs). The quick sharing and live preview got positive remarks – you can literally send a link of the running app to a friend while it’s being built. For product builders, this means extremely fast iteration and feedback loops. Lastly, a hidden “pro” is that by observing how Bolt.new builds things, you can learn best practices. It often uses well-accepted libraries and patterns. If you’re unsure how to implement X, seeing Bolt do a version of it can be educational.

User Reviews – Cons: 1) May produce minimalistic code: One review noted the output “felt a little barebones – it’s efficient but lacks detailed comments or context that might help newer developers” (Bolt.new vs Windsurf AI – Which One is a Better AI Coder? – Fuel Your Digital). Bolt assumes the user (or the next person editing the code) will know how to expand or polish it. So you might get a functional but very basic solution. For experts that’s fine (they can extend it), but beginners might be left wondering why something was done.
2) Debugging Complexity: If Bolt.new gets something wrong, it can be tricky to debug during the generation process. It does try to fix errors automatically, but sometimes it can get into a loop or not realize the deeper issue. One Reddit user said “I cannot get it to build a simple working web tool… Errors galore. Super frustrating.” (Have anyone tried bolt.new? : r/ChatGPTCoding – Reddit) – indicating that if the project is slightly beyond its training or has an environment issue, it might flail. In such cases, you might have to intervene by manually editing the code in the editor (which you can do at any time) to steer it.
3) Limited Interactivity in Prompting: Bolt.new’s interface often works like: you give an initial prompt (the idea or feature list), then it goes. You can converse with it, but the interface is not as chat-oriented as, say, Cursor or ChatGPT. It’s more like a real-time log of actions. This means it might not ask for clarification much, and if the result isn’t what you wanted, you often restart with a refined prompt. It’s improving over time (they might integrate a chat to iteratively refine), but originally it was a one-shot generation for the bulk of the project.
**4) Project Size Limits: Because it’s running in-browser, extremely large projects or heavy computation might not work well. It’s ideal for MVPs and prototypes. If you tried “build me a clone of Facebook,” it’s not going to succeed meaningfully (also due to scope). One user observed it “sometimes goes in circles on larger projects” trying to fix bug after bug without end (Can someone tell me why is bolt.diy better than bolt.new ? : r/boltnewbuilders). That’s likely when the scope is too big or ambiguous.

Technical Details: Bolt.new’s open-source counterpart (bolt.diy) gives insights. Bolt uses models like GPT-4 and has experimented with others (they mentioned DeepSeek and Gemini integration in bolt.diy). It runs on the Vercel AI SDK, meaning it can interface with a variety of model providers (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!). It also maintained prompt libraries (bolt.new had a core prompt that the community tuned in bolt.diy). For example, app/lib/.server/llm/prompts.ts was a file where prompt templates are defined (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!) – hints that Bolt’s approach is heavily prompt-engineered for coding tasks. Also, Bolt has features like “detect package.json and auto-install, auto-run preview” (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!) which reflect how it operates: it scans what it created and takes actions (like if it created a package.json, it will run npm install without being told). Essentially, it implements an agent loop (like OpenAI’s function calling or a simplified AutoGPT) specialized for dev tasks.

Prompting Tips (Bolt.new):

  • Outline Your Project in the Prompt: Bolt.new responds well to a clear specification up front. For example: “Project: Recipe Sharing App. Features: User registration, submit recipe (title, ingredients, steps, image), view list of recipes, like a recipe. Tech: Use React for frontend, Node.js (Express) for backend, and MongoDB for database.” This prompt gives Bolt a blueprint. It will then know to create user model, recipe model, routes for submit and list, a React interface, etc. If you just said “Recipe app” with no details, it might create something too simple and you’ll have to prompt again for extra features.
  • Be Technology-Specific if You Care: If you have a preferred stack or language, mention it. “Using Flask and SQLite”, or “Use Next.js for the frontend”. Otherwise, Bolt will choose for you. It often picks popular combos (Express + Vue or React, etc.), but if you have something in mind, say it. This prevents a scenario where it builds in a language you don’t know well, for instance.
  • Let it Finish Before Tweaking: While Bolt is generating and running, avoid stopping it prematurely. It might look like it’s done when it’s actually still setting something up (the UI log will usually tell you what it’s doing). Once it says something like “Application is live” or stops making changes, then test the app or examine the code. Interrupting too early could leave you with half-set-up code.
  • Use Comments in Requirements: A trick: you can include pseudo-code or specific requirements in code comments within your prompt. For example, “// The homepage should show a list of recipes with their title and author.” Bolt has been known to actually read even pseudo-code or structured lists in the prompt and follow them. This makes your prompt like a mini design doc.
  • One Feature at a Time (for Chat refinement): After initial generation, if you want to add a feature, try phrasing it as a follow-up. E.g., “Now add the ability for users to comment on recipes.” Bolt.new’s interface might not be as conversational, but newer versions allow follow-up prompts. It will treat it as a new task on the existing project. Keeping each request focused (one new feature at a time) helps avoid confusion.
  • Check Logs for Errors: Always glance at the terminal logs Bolt.new shows. If you see red text (errors) that it didn’t address, you might need to prompt it to fix it. For example, if there’s a deprecation warning or a minor runtime bug Bolt ignored, say “Fix the warning about deprecated API X”. It should handle that quickly.
  • Don’t Hesitate to Edit Manually: You have full access to the code during the session. If Bolt is almost right but not quite, you can type in the editor to adjust. For instance, if it created a component but you want a different text, just change it. The AI might notice your change and adapt future outputs (in bolt.diy, the agent can see edits; not sure if Bolt.new does live adaptation). Regardless, manual edits won’t break the process. After editing, you can still ask Bolt to continue with another feature.
  • Use Bolt.new for Boilerplate, Finish by Hand: A strategy some use is: get Bolt to make the core project, then download it and finish development locally. So, your prompting might focus only on the skeleton and critical pieces. Once done, hit the “Export” or download. This is useful if you want to integrate into a larger project or use version control on your machine. Prompt accordingly: e.g., “Don’t worry about styling, just set up the functionality. I will style it later.” This tells the AI to focus on logic and skip time on CSS, giving you a lean starting point.
  • Mind the Limits: Very complex prompts (“build an entire e-commerce site”) might cause Bolt to run out of time or tokens. It’s better to split into parts: “Build a product catalog and shopping cart” first, then later “add checkout with Stripe integration”. This sequential approach is more reliable, and Bolt.new is quite capable of continuing from where it left off as long as the session persists.

Bolt.diy – Open Source AI Coder (Self-Hosted)

Overview: Bolt.diy is the open-source, do-it-yourself version of Bolt.new (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!). It was released to allow the community to run and improve the AI coding assistant on their own machines, using their choice of AI models. In essence, it’s the core of Bolt.new’s functionality without the proprietary parts, so developers can tinker, extend, and even avoid paid API usage by plugging in local models. It’s a community-driven project under the oTTo DIY initiative (oTTo was a codename for Bolt). If you like the idea of Bolt.new but want more control or not incur usage costs, Bolt.diy is for you.

Key Features:

Integrations: Bolt.diy integrates with a lot of model providers thanks to Vercel’s SDK and community PRs: OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere, Azure OpenAI, Amazon Bedrock (Claude 2.1) (Anthropic’s Claude – Models in Amazon Bedrock – AWS) (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!), Ollama (run local LLaMA), HuggingFace, xAI (Grok) (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!), etc. It doesn’t have a native integration into, say, VS Code (though on the roadmap there is mention “VSCode Integration with git-like confirmations” (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!)). For now, you use its own web IDE. But you can sync with a local folder (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!), meaning you could edit in VS Code and refresh in Bolt.diy or vice versa – a bit manual but workable. It also offers to publish projects to GitHub directly from the interface.

Pricing: Free. Bolt.diy itself costs nothing – it’s open source (Apache 2.0) (GitHub – RooVetGit/Roo-Code: Roo Code (prev. Roo Cline) is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in your editor.). Of course, using it might involve costs if you choose a paid API model (e.g., OpenAI API calls aren’t free) or hosting (if you deploy it on a server). But you have the freedom to choose a free model (like local LLMs) to truly have a zero-cost setup, albeit with potentially lower quality outputs depending on the model.

User Reviews – Pros: Enthusiasts love the freedom it gives. No vendor lock-in, no recurring fees to experiment – you can try out advanced AI coding without pulling out a credit card (assuming you use a free model or the free tier of an API). Developers mention it’s “the open source coding tool we’ve been asking for” (Bolt.diy Is The Open Source Coding Tool We’ve Been Asking for). The community around it is active and helpful; people in the Discord/forums share tips on setting up, which models work best, etc. A major plus is extensibility: if Bolt.diy is missing a feature, someone might build it. Already in a short time, features like multi-model support and improved prompting were added by contributors (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!). It’s encouraging if you’re technically inclined – you could even integrate it with something like VS Code yourself or fine-tune prompts to your liking. Another pro: no limits (except hardware). Bolt.new had usage limits, but with DIY you can generate as much as your machine (or API quotas) allow. Also, companies can white-label or customize it for their workflows since it’s permissive license. Users who have tried both bolt.new and .diy say the core functionality is very similar when set up properly.

User Reviews – Cons: The flip side of DIY is setup complexity. It’s not a polished plug-and-play product. As one Reddit user put it, “I tried setting up Bolt.diy, finally got it working but it didn’t feel as seamless as Bolt.new” (Can someone tell me why is bolt.diy better than bolt.new ? : r/boltnewbuilders). You have to install Node.js, possibly Docker if you use that route, get API keys, configure env files, etc. For a non-developer or someone who just wants it to work out of the box, this could be a hurdle. Another con is lack of support/hand-holding: you’re on your own if it breaks. There’s community help, but no official support team like a paid product would have. If something goes wrong (like the AI getting stuck or not connecting to the model), you’ll need to dig into logs or ask the community. Some have noted that Bolt.diy might be missing some features of Bolt.new or a bit behind in updates (depending on community merges). For example, if Bolt.new integrated a new model, Bolt.diy might take some time for someone to contribute that integration (though so far community has been quick). Performance can also be an issue: running it locally means your hardware matters. Using GPT-4 via API is fine, but if you try to run a big model on your own GPU or CPU, it could be slow or not fit in memory. Also, local models might not be as good at coding, so quality can vary greatly depending on what you choose – not exactly a “con” of Bolt.diy itself, but something to be mindful of.

Technical Details: Bolt.diy is built with Next.js (for the frontend) and Node (for the backend that orchestrates AI calls and file ops). The AI prompting logic is likely similar to Bolt.new’s: it keeps a conversation context of actions, uses system prompts guiding the AI to output diffs or code, etc. In Bolt.diy’s code, one can see prompt templates that ensure the AI outputs results in a structured way (like including markdown tokens for code blocks, etc.). It also uses a technique to handle file editing: possibly something like reading the file contents, the instruction, and asking the model to return a modified file, which it then applies diff from. The presence of features like “dynamic model max token length” setting (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!) indicates you can tweak how much context to send to the model, which can be important to avoid truncation with smaller models. The community was also focusing on reducing the AI’s tendency to rewrite whole files unnecessarily (file locking and diff improvements are on roadmap (GitHub – stackblitz-labs/bolt.diy: Prompt, run, edit, and deploy full-stack web applications using any LLM you want!)). Essentially, Bolt.diy under the hood orchestrates a loop: read code -> prompt AI -> apply changes -> run code -> if error -> prompt AI with error -> etc., similar to an autonomous agent loop.

Prompting Tips (Bolt.diy):

  • Tips for Bolt.new largely apply here as well. But additionally:
  • Configure the Right Model for the Task: If you have multiple models available, choose wisely. For instance, use GPT-4 for complex tasks (though slow, it’s thorough), use GPT-3.5 for quick iterations if quality isn’t crucial, or try a specialized code model. You can often set a default model in config or even switch in the UI (depending on version). If a local model isn’t performing, don’t struggle – switch to a known-good API model for that task.
  • Warm Up with Small Tasks: On a self-hosted setup, it’s useful to test something simple first to ensure your model integration works. e.g., “Print Hello World to console” just to see it go through the motions. This can flush out any config issues before you throw a big project at it.
  • Monitor the Console and Logs: Since you have access to the server logs, keep an eye on them. If the AI output is too large or some error happened behind the scenes, you’ll catch it there. Sometimes the UI might not show a model error (like if your API key is wrong or you hit a rate limit), but the terminal will. Being your own admin means watching for those signs.
  • Adjust System Prompts if Needed: Bolt.diy allows prompt customization. If you open prompts.ts (or wherever the prompt templates are), you can fine-tune how it asks the AI to behave. For example, you might add a line “Always respond with concise code changes and minimal commentary” if a model is being too verbose. Only do this if you’re comfortable – but it’s a powerful way to tailor the AI’s style to your liking.
  • Use it on Existing Codebases: One cool use – load one of your existing projects into Bolt.diy and ask it to add a feature or refactor. This is something Bolt.new wasn’t explicitly made for (it was more create new). Bolt.diy can shine here. Prompt like “Here’s an overview of the project: (brief description). Now, implement Feature X.” It’s like hiring an AI pair programmer on your own code. Just be careful to have version control in case something goes wrong; always good to commit before letting AI loose, so you can diff and revert if needed.
  • Community Prompt Library: Check if the community has shared prompt templates or best practices. There might be a file or wiki with sample prompts for common tasks (“Set up CI workflow”, “Create CRUD for X”, etc.). Using these can save time in phrasing things optimally.
  • Segment Big Tasks: Even more than with Bolt.new, for local runs segmentation helps because local models or smaller API contexts can choke on huge tasks. Break a big feature into smaller prompts sequentially. You have full control, so you can even script or automate some of this if you’re savvy (like feed a series of instructions from a file).
  • Contribute Back: This isn’t exactly a prompting tip for usage, but since you’re using the DIY version – if you find better ways to prompt it for a certain framework or a bug fix, consider contributing that prompt or fix. The project thrives on community, and your improvements will make prompting easier for everyone in the long run.

Lovable – AI App Builder for Web (No-Code to Low-Code)

Overview: Lovable (lovable.dev) is an AI-powered platform aimed at turning ideas into working web applications with minimal coding. It’s like having a product designer, front-end developer, and back-end developer all in one AI system. The emphasis is on visual appeal and speed – it strives to produce apps that not only function but look professionally designed. Lovable was one of the highly buzzed startups of 2024, marketed as “20x faster than coding” and geared towards entrepreneurs, designers, and developers to quickly bring ideas to life (Lovable).

Key Features:

  • Natural Language to Full App: You literally start by describing what you want in plain language. For example: “I want a travel blog site where I can post articles with images, and readers can leave comments.” Lovable will generate a working prototype of that web app – complete with a frontend UI, some placeholder content, and basic functionality for posting and commenting. This happens “instantly” or within a couple of minutes for more complex apps (Lovable) (Lovable).
  • Live Editor with AI Agent: Once the initial version is built, Lovable provides an editor interface where you can see your app in a phone or web frame, and a chat (or command palette) to talk to the AI about changes. You can click on any element on the page (it will highlight like in a design tool) and ask the AI to modify it – “Make this button bigger and blue”, “Move it to the top-right”, etc. They call this “Select & Edit”, giving fine-grained WYSIWYG control via natural language (Lovable).
  • Design-focused output: A differentiator for Lovable is that it strives to produce aesthetically pleasing designs out of the box. It “follows best practice UI & UX principles” so that “every idea… is beautifully designed.” (Lovable). In practice, it uses modern UI libraries (Tailwind CSS, Shadcn UI components, etc.) to ensure the app looks like something a professional front-end dev would make. On Product Hunt it got praise for the quality of generated UI (not just plain HTML).
  • Integrated Backend & Database: Under the hood, Lovable sets up typical backend needs. It has a built-in integration with Supabase (an open-source Firebase alternative) to handle database, auth, and storage (Lovable AI: A Guide With Demo Project | DataCamp) (Lovable AI: A Guide With Demo Project | DataCamp). For example, when you create a new project and ask for user accounts or data persistence, it will prompt you to connect to Supabase (with a wizard) (Lovable AI: A Guide With Demo Project | DataCamp) (Lovable AI: A Guide With Demo Project | DataCamp). It can also integrate APIs like Stripe for payments, or other third-party services (possibly via Supabase Edge functions or directly) (Lovable.dev – AI Web App Builder | Refine).
  • One-Click Deployment & Sharing: Lovable hosts the app for you (during beta, they offer free hosting up to some limit) (Lovable). You can share a link to your live app or invite others to view it. It also syncs code to GitHub if you want, meaning you can always get the full source and work on it outside Lovable (Lovable) (Lovable). The idea is you’re never locked in – you own the code and can continue development in a traditional environment if needed.
  • Branching and Collaboration: They mention you can “collaborate with branching” (Lovable). This suggests multiple people can work on the project or you can experiment in a branch and merge changes, akin to version control but through their UI. This is particularly useful for teams (e.g., a designer can tweak the UI in one branch while a dev works on a custom function in another).
  • AI Bug Fixer: There’s a feature where if something goes wrong (error/bug), you can ask the AI to fix it. “The AI fixes your bugs” (Lovable) implies that during the edit process, if you encounter a problem (maybe a console error), Lovable’s AI can step in to resolve it, either automatically or via prompt.

Integrations: As noted, Supabase is a big one (databases, auth) (Lovable AI: A Guide With Demo Project | DataCamp) (Lovable AI: A Guide With Demo Project | DataCamp). It likely also uses Next.js (or a similar SSR framework) under the hood because they reference connecting to back-end functionality and deploying on Vercel. Possibly, Lovable might be generating a Next.js codebase – which would align with using React, Vite, etc. (They mention front-end uses React/Tailwind/Vite (Lovable.dev – AI Web App Builder | Refine) and that support for backend is in alpha, meaning initially they relied on Supabase or simple serverless functions). Integration with GitHub is seamless – you connect your GitHub and it can push the project there (Lovable). Also, any REST or GraphQL API can be integrated by instructing the AI to fetch from it; the AI can add the necessary code to call external APIs. In their UI, they might have specific “Integrations” menu for common ones (Stripe, Google Maps, etc.).

Pricing: Currently, Lovable has tiered plans (with a free trial period). From their site (Lovable) (Lovable):

  • Free: limited daily usage (perhaps a certain number of messages or limited projects).
  • Starter $20/mo: monthly generation limits instead of daily, and unlimited private projects (Lovable).
  • Launch $50/mo: higher limits (2.5x) for those actively building a small project or two (Lovable).
  • Scale $100/mo: even larger limits, early feature access, presumably for power users or bigger projects (Lovable).
  • Teams: custom pricing with more support (Lovable). During beta, they also included 100GB of free hosting bandwidth on paid plans (Lovable). The pricing is on the higher side, indicating it’s geared towards entrepreneurs/startups who see value in rapid development (and are maybe comparing against hiring developers or outsourcing cost, which is far higher). The free tier is enough to try out and build a basic app to evaluate.

User Reviews – Pros: On Product Hunt and social media, users were amazed by how quickly they could go from idea to something tangible. Non-coders have reported building functional prototypes, which is a big testament. For instance, a designer without coding background could create a portfolio site with dynamic content just by describing their vision. The learning curve is low: “simply describe your idea in your own words, and watch it transform” (Lovable). The output’s visual quality gets praise – it’s not the generic bootstrap-looking result; it tends to be modern and slick by default. Also, users liked the ownership aspect – you can get the code. Many no-code tools lock you into their platform (and you can’t easily get the underlying code). Lovable explicitly says “You own the code… sync to GitHub and edit in any code editor” (Lovable), which builds trust with developers. Another pro: it handles deployment and hosting, which means no DevOps hassle for the user. That one-click deploy means your app is live on the internet (on a *.lovable.app domain or custom domain) without messing with servers. Early adopters (like in DataCamp’s tutorial (Lovable AI: A Guide With Demo Project | DataCamp)) found the Supabase integration particularly helpful – stuff like auth and database are set up with minimal effort, which are usually pain points to integrate manually. In summary, speed, design, and completeness of the generated app are top pros.

User Reviews – Cons: As with any ambitious AI system, Lovable has limitations. Scope of understanding: If your idea is too complex or not clearly explained, the result might not match your expectation. The refine.dev blog noted that while it’s great at generating the skeleton, “where it might fall short” would be complex logic or highly bespoke requirements that the AI isn’t trained on (Lovable.dev – AI Web App Builder | Refine) (Lovable.dev – AI Web App Builder | Refine). For example, if your app needs a very specific algorithm or niche domain logic, Lovable may implement something simplistic or incorrect. Alpha features: Support for custom backends was in alpha (Lovable.dev – AI Web App Builder | Refine), which means if you need heavy server-side logic beyond what Supabase offers (like complex transactions or integrations not supported out-of-box), you might hit a wall or have to write that code manually after exporting. Prompting complexity: Non-coders might still struggle to communicate exactly what they want for interactive features. For instance, describing a multi-step workflow in words can be tricky and may require a few tries. Some users have reported that for very interactive apps, they had to do iterative prompting and occasional code edits themselves, which is expected but should be noted – it’s not always one-shot perfect. Performance & Scalability: It’s unclear how a Lovable-generated app scales under heavy usage. Since it’s mostly standard tech (React + Supabase), it should scale as those do, but someone building a production app might need to optimize and refine. Also, the code quality, while decent, might not be as optimized or clean as a senior dev would write by hand – it’s generally good but could have redundancy or not follow some specific patterns a team might prefer. Cost could be a con if you exceed the free limits – heavy use of the AI (lots of chat messages, bigger apps) might require the higher plans, which could be steep for an individual (but likely fine for a startup in prototyping phase).

Technical Details: Lovable’s generated stack: They themselves revealed front-end is React+Vite+Tailwind (Lovable.dev – AI Web App Builder | Refine). Tailwind ensures consistent styling and ease of customization. They likely use a design system (shadcn UI, which is built on Radix UI, was mentioned in context of Vercel’s v0, not sure if Lovable uses it, but possibly since it’s popular for AI-generated UIs). The “backend” at the moment is largely handled by Supabase – which provides a Postgres DB, authentication (OAuth, email, etc.), and edge functions. Lovable might create SQL tables in Supabase based on your app’s needs (e.g., if you have a “recipes” concept, it might create a recipes table with appropriate schema). For any serverless logic, it might inject code into Supabase Edge Functions (which are essentially Node.js functions). The exported code likely includes a Next.js or Node server to replicate what Supabase was doing if you choose to run without Supabase. The AI prompting is probably structured such that it first produces a high-level plan (like data models, pages, components) and then implements each. If an error occurs, the interactive nature allows it to fix it (like if a component references a state that wasn’t defined, the AI can catch that when you point it out). They probably use GPT-4 behind the scenes to get the best quality (which partly explains the pricing). Also, Lovable being a startup might have its own orchestration layer to ensure the output uses best practices (maybe they fine-tuned or at least have extensive prompt patterns for UI tasks, to include comments, etc.). The refine.dev blog indicates that Lovable is adept at generating “the skeleton of your project” and handling “integrating APIs and managing deployment” (Lovable.dev – AI Web App Builder | Refine), which suggests a multi-step pipeline: skeleton, then integration, then deploy.

Prompting Tips (Lovable):

  • Start with a One-Sentence Pitch: When creating a new project on Lovable, provide a concise app description. “A mobile app to track daily habits with a progress dashboard” is a good start, for example. Lovable uses that to set initial context. Keep it to one or two sentences focusing on what the app does. It doesn’t need to capture everything (you’ll refine later), but it should set the theme and key feature.
  • Use the Editor Interactively: After generation, use the select & edit feature. Click on an element in the preview, and then in the chat say what you want changed. For example, “Change this title to ‘My Habit Tracker’ and make it larger.” Because you selected the title, the AI knows the context. This is often more effective than a generic prompt like “make the title larger” when multiple text elements exist. Leverage the visual selection to anchor your requests.
  • Speak in Terms of User Experience: When prompting for new features, describe it from the user’s perspective. “As a user, I want to be able to mark a habit as done for the day, and see a checkmark appear.” This style helps the AI understand the functional requirement and UI outcome. Lovable is trained to translate UX or product language into concrete UI changes and possibly data model changes.
  • Leverage Templates: Lovable likely has some internal templates (like common layouts or components). Try asking for known app types: “Build a todo list app”, “Create a blog with a home page, post page, and admin page”. These canonical examples might trigger well-tested patterns. Then customize from there. For instance, you can then say “Now turn the blog into a travel diary style with more images.”
  • Ask for Design Changes by Analogy: If you want a certain style, referencing known designs can help. e.g., “Make the button look like a Material Design button” or “Use a dark theme with neon accents, like a cyberpunk style.” The AI can interpret these creative inputs to adjust the Tailwind classes or add styling accordingly. It might not nail very specific brand styles, but broad styles (minimalist, corporate, playful, etc.) it can manage.
  • Iterate Feature by Feature: Don’t try to get everything in one prompt. For example, first ask for a basic feature (list habits, mark as done), then once that works, ask “Add user login so each user sees their own habits.” The AI will then set up authentication (via Supabase likely) and associate data with users. This stepwise approach ensures stability at each stage, and you can test each piece in between.
  • Use High-Level Commands: Lovable might have some special commands or understand higher-level requests like “Generate sample data” or “Add onboarding tutorial”. If you think of something a typical app might need, try just asking for it. For instance, “Add a navigation bar with links to Home, Profile, and Settings.” Because it’s dealing with full apps, it likely has heard such requests and can implement them easily.
  • Preview on Different Devices: The editor probably lets you toggle a mobile view. Check how the AI’s design responds. If something looks off on mobile, mention it: “On mobile, make the header fixed to top and collapse the menu into a hamburger.” Lovable can handle responsive design changes if you point them out, since Tailwind and modern CSS make it relatively straightforward and it knows the patterns.
  • Combine Chat and Manual Edits: You aren’t restricted to only using chat. If you know some code, you can manually tweak something in the code editor panel. For example, if the AI’s wording in a UI text isn’t what you want, you can directly edit that text. The next time you ask the AI something, it will take into account your manual changes (since they are now part of the project state). This is useful for fine-tuning content or doing something very specific that’s easier to just type yourself.
  • Get Explanations and Learning: If you’re curious how a certain feature works, ask Lovable: “Explain how the login functionality is implemented.” It can then tell you about Supabase auth or tokens, etc., which is great for learning. You can also ask “Show me the code for X” and it will open the relevant file or snippet. Use this to understand and verify the code – it’s your project, after all.
  • After Export, Set Up Environment Variables: When you push to GitHub and run independently, remember to configure Supabase keys or any API keys the app needs (Lovable handled that in the cloud, but locally you’ll need an .env). Lovable usually puts these in a .env.local or explains in docs (their “Learn” docs site likely covers deployment outside). Prompt the AI within Lovable “How do I run this project outside Lovable?” – it might give you a checklist of tasks, which is a neat way to get deployment instructions.

Replit Agents – AI DevOps in Your Browser

Overview: Replit, the popular online IDE, has introduced Replit Agent (part of their Replit AI suite, which also includes Ghostwriter). This “Agent” is an AI system that can “create and deploy applications” from a natural language prompt (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent). It goes beyond autocompletion – it actually performs actions like setting up the project, writing multiple files, running code, debugging, and deploying, all in an automated flow. Essentially, Replit Agent aims to handle all the tedious parts of coding so you can focus on the idea. It’s tightly integrated into Replit’s cloud environment, meaning it can spin up the necessary containers and infrastructure as it works.

Key Features:

  • Idea to Code to Deployment: You can give Replit’s AI agent a command like “Create a website that says hello and has a button to fetch a random cat fact”. The agent will pick the stack (maybe a simple Flask or Node.js server for the API and an HTML/JS frontend), write the code for each part, assemble it in a Replit project, and then deploy it to Replit’s hosting. All with minimal user intervention. They boast you can go “from idea to deployment in minutes with a few sentences” (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent).
  • Environment Setup and Package Management: The agent automatically handles environment setup on Replit. Need a Python project? It’ll create a main.py and a replit.nix (Replit uses Nix for packages) or requirements.txt as appropriate. For Node, it’ll init a package.json and install dependencies. It’s like having someone run all the right commands (npm init, pip install X, etc.) for you in the correct sequence. In fact, one highlight is it “installs dependencies” on its own (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent), saving you from troubleshooting environment issues.
  • Executing Code and Debugging: The Replit Agent doesn’t just write code – it runs it in the Replit environment. If an error occurs (as shown in console), it catches that and can modify the code to fix it. This loop is similar to Bolt’s, but integrated in Replit’s IDE. They specifically mention it “configures, installs, executes code” (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent). Also, if your idea includes running tasks (e.g., a web scraper that needs to run and output results), it can execute them and show output.
  • Multi-step Conversations: Replit Agent can take instructions iteratively. After the initial creation, you can say “Now add a database to store user input” or “Deploy this to a new URL”, and it will continue the process. Replit’s chat interface for the agent allows back-and-forth, effectively a conversational development process.
  • Integration with Replit’s GUI: While the agent works, you’ll see it creating files in the file tree, writing code into the editor, opening the preview if it’s a web app, etc. This gives a transparent view of what’s happening. You can stop it or edit code yourself at any time. Also, if you switch to the code editor and make changes, the agent can take those into account (similar to others).
  • Deployment Targets: Initially, Replit deploys to their own infrastructure (it can host web apps on a URL). Possibly they’ll allow export to other platforms in the future, but currently one of the selling points is just clicking “Deploy” and your app is live on replit.app domain or similar. The agent likely automates that click for you too.
  • Project Examples and Templates: They have shown off examples like “health dashboard for patients”, “campus parking map”, and “workflow automation tool” built with the agent (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent) (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent). This implies the agent can handle a range of domains – from simple web pages to ones involving external data or integration (like calling an API for parking data, etc.).

Integrations: Replit Agent sits on top of Replit’s IDE which supports many languages and frameworks. It can utilize Replit’s database (Replit has a built-in small key-value store for apps), web hosting, and possibly their new Ghostwriter code models for completions. It might also leverage Replit’s polygott environment that supports over 50 languages. So if you say “make it in Rust,” it might attempt to (if the agent is capable in that language – likely it depends on the underlying LLM’s knowledge). Replit is using OpenAI models for Ghostwriter (GPT-4), and they hinted at their own model for code (they trained a code model called Replit-code v1 and v2). The agent might use a combination: maybe their own model for faster stuff and GPT-4 via API for complex reasoning. Additionally, Replit’s deployment integrates with GitHub (you can import/export Repls from GitHub), so the agent could possibly push code to a repo if asked (though not sure if this is implemented, but Replit’s API would allow it).

Pricing: Replit’s Ghostwriter (AI features) initially was $10/mo for 1,000 “cycles” (their credit system), but recently they shifted to offer Ghostwriter as part of the Replit Pro plan ($20/mo) which includes AI Unlimited. The Reddit thread we saw suggests some confusion and adjustments in billing (Scam alert: ghost changes to Agent pricing : r/replit) (Scam alert: ghost changes to Agent pricing : r/replit). It appears now if you pay for the Replit Pro plan, you get unlimited Ghostwriter AND Agent usage, subject to fair use. They gave refunds/credits to people when they changed pricing, implying they might have moved away from purely usage-based to a more fixed plan. Replit’s official pricing page would clarify, but expect ~$20/mo for the full AI suite (which is comparable to Cursor’s price, but here you also get Replit’s hosting, always-on repls, etc.). Free users have some access – I believe free tier can use a limited version of the agent or a limited number of prompts per day. (Replit gives free users a taste to entice upgrade.)

User Reviews – Pros: Those who got it to work built surprisingly complex things quickly. In Replit’s community, users have shared agent-generated apps that would normally take hours to scaffold, but the agent did in 20 minutes. The convenience of not leaving the IDE for anything – code, run, debug, deploy all in one place – is a big win. One user on Reddit noted the agent “was generating working code for about 20 minutes”, seemingly amazed (though that review turned sour after – see cons) (Buyer Beware: Replit’s AI Agent Review – Reddit). Another user on Hacker News or Reddit mentioned building automations that replaced their need for Zapier-like tools, by just describing them to Replit (like reading/writing to Google Sheets, sending emails, etc., though those might need integration keys). The Replit Agent excels at full-stack tasks because Replit environment supports both frontend and backend – for example, it can add an HTML file and a Python Flask file in one project. People who aren’t experts in deployment also love that it’s taken care of. Non-trivial example: That doctor’s health dashboard story (Replit — Introducing Replit Agent) suggests domain experts (not professional devs) can create useful tools with it, which is a huge positive. Students also like it because they can automate parts of assignments or quickly test ideas (though educators might be concerned, haha). Generally, the concept of “it’s like having an engineer do the boring setup” resonates; developers with experience know that setting up a new project or deploying is time-consuming, so having it auto-done is appreciated.

User Reviews – Cons: Early in launch, some users encountered serious issues. A Reddit thread titled “Buyer Beware: Replit’s AI Agent” had a top comment saying “it was incredible… then things went downhill” (Buyer Beware: Replit’s AI Agent Review – Reddit). Specifically, they saw it generate good code for a while, then probably get stuck or produce garbage. Another user in that thread expressed frustration that the agent “loops into the same errors over and over” (Scam alert: ghost changes to Agent pricing : r/replit). This indicates that while the idea is great, the execution sometimes faltered – the agent might fix error A only to cause error B, then fix B reintroducing A, etc. Possibly due to model limitations or incomplete error capture. Replit devs acknowledged some billing issues – folks not expecting charges got charged when agent ran for long, which caused upset (they refunded those) (Scam alert: ghost changes to Agent pricing : r/replit). On the technical side, context length could be a limitation – if the project gets large, the agent might lose track of earlier parts, causing inconsistencies. Also, some advanced setups are beyond it – e.g., deploying a complicated multi-service architecture, or integrating a service that requires secrets – the agent might not automatically know how to store secrets securely (maybe it does in Replit’s Secrets tab, but not sure if that’s wired up). Another con: lack of transparency when stuck – some users didn’t know why it wasn’t making progress. Because it’s beta, it might not always explain itself when it fails. Also, currently you probably need to supervise it; it’s not like you can say “build me X” and leave – you have to watch and intervene if needed. But that’s expected in current state of AI. Summarily, stability was the main con early on: great when it works, frustrating when it doesn’t.

Technical Details: Replit likely uses GPT-4 or an equivalent as the brain of the agent (the discussion on Reddit praising Claude’s coding vs GPT-4 mentioned “Sonnet 3.5 leaps and bounds ahead of 4o [GPT-4 OpenAI] in coding tasks”, implying Replit might consider Anthropic too (Okay yes, Claude is better than ChatGPT for now : r/OpenAI) (Okay yes, Claude is better than ChatGPT for now : r/OpenAI), though as of launch they used OpenAI). They definitely have infrastructure to run code in a sandbox (every Repl is a container/vm). The agent has access to that runtime via an API – basically it can execute shell commands, read/write files. This is akin to how OpenAI’s Code Interpreter plugin works, or AutoGPT with tools. Replit likely implemented their own “agent loop” with the model: the model can output a command like “create file X with content Y” or “run” and the agent system will do it, then feed back results. This is somewhat confirmed by how it behaves (installing dependencies etc. means it’s executing commands). So, under the hood, it’s not just prompting the model with raw code – it’s a conversational agent with tool use ability. Replit’s UI abstracts it for the user, but that’s likely the design. This means there’s a lot that can go wrong in that loop if not handled perfectly (which explains some loop bugs). They are surely refining it quickly. The agent uses Ghostwriter’s context (which can see the whole Repl’s code) plus dynamic output from running code. It’s quite a complex system but an exciting one.

Prompting Tips (Replit Agent):

  • Start Simple with Description: When creating a new Repl with the agent, provide a short description in the prompt field of what you want. It’s often best to start with a minimal viable feature set. “A simple Flask app that has one route for ‘/’ and displays ‘Hello World’.” might be too trivial (Ghostwriter can do that without agent), so something like “A Flask web app with a form to submit a name and it greets that name on the next page” is a good small scope example. Once it does that, you can expand.
  • Be Directive if You Have Preferences: If you want a certain language or framework, state that upfront. “Using Flask (Python)…” or “Using Node.js (Express)…”. Otherwise the agent will pick what it thinks is best or what it has seen often. It often picks Python for quick scripts or Node for web, but you can guide it. If you say nothing, it might choose a simpler path (which could be fine).
  • One Task at a Time: After it generates the initial app, test it (Replit shows a preview or output). Then iterate. For each new feature, clearly state it in a new prompt. “Add a new page ‘/about’ with some info about the site.” Let it finish that. Then “Add Bootstrap for styling.” Then “Deploy it.” Breaking tasks down helps maintain clarity and avoids the model confusing multiple requirements.
  • Watch the Output Pane: As the agent runs commands, you’ll see installation logs or error traces in the console. If you spot an error before the agent does (maybe something it skipped), you can prompt it: “Fix the error about X in the console.” However, usually it will catch runtime errors and start fixing without being told. If it seems to stall, giving it a nudge like “It looks like [some error] occurred” can re-focus it.
  • Intervene on Infinite Loops: If you notice the agent toggling between two states (e.g., writing and deleting similar code, or repeatedly restarting the server), stop it. You can click the stop button or type something to break the cycle. Then provide a targeted instruction addressing the problem. E.g., “The login function is still not working – please rethink the logic without recursion” or something, if you deduce the cause. The current AI isn’t perfect, so a human eye can save time here.
  • Ask for Explanations if Curious: You can query the agent about its plan. “Explain what steps you are going to do.” It might outline how it will implement a feature. This could either reassure you or help you guide it differently if you don’t like the approach. It’s also a good way to learn (like, why did it choose one library over another).
  • Leverage Replit’s UI for Files: If you want to adjust a specific file, you might prompt: “Open the file where the form is defined.” The agent might respond by showing the code or telling you, but since you have the IDE, you can just click the file. Then you could say “In this file, change the input to also accept an email address.” Because the file is open, the agent knows you’re referring to that context.
  • Use Replit’s Database or Secrets via Instructions: The agent can use Replit DB if asked: “Use Replit’s database to store user preferences”. It knows about Replit DB (simple key-value store) and will import replit module to use it. For secrets (API keys), you could say “I have stored an API key under Secrets as API_KEY, use it to call the OpenWeather API.” The agent should know to retrieve it (Replit provides it as env var) and use it. Giving it heads-up about where things are helps.
  • If Deployment Fails, Check Logs: Deployment on Replit might just be running the web server persistently. If something fails at “Deploy”, open the deployed URL or logs to see what’s wrong. Then instruct, e.g., “The deployed app is crashing due to X error, fix that.” The agent will go back to coding mode to resolve it.
  • Save Progress and Fork: Before trying a very radical change, consider forking your Repl or copying it. Agents are powerful but could ruin something that was working. Replit’s version history might help too (if you have that feature enabled). It’s like making a backup: that way you can compare if the agent’s new approach goes awry, you can manually revert or cherry-pick.
  • Utilize Ghostwriter Autocomplete Too: While the agent writes code, you can also write code and get inline suggestions from Ghostwriter. If you feel the agent is overkill for a small addition, you can do it manually and use the AI for small completions. Replit’s AI features aren’t mutually exclusive; agent is more high-level, Ghostwriter inline is for low-level – use each at will.
  • Provide Feedback to Replit: If you’re in the early user group, Replit employees are eager to get feedback on failure cases. You can use the feedback command (there might be a button) or share the conversation with them. While not a usage tip per se, it can help them improve the agent, which in turn will make your future prompting easier and more successful.

v0.dev (Vercel’s Generative UI) – AI Pair Programmer for Next.js

Overview: Vercel’s v0.dev is an AI tool focusing on building web user interfaces through conversation. It’s like ChatGPT specifically fine-tuned for Next.js/React development, running in a browser IDE. Vercel positions v0 as “Vercel’s AI-powered pair programmer” that knows all about modern web tooling (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel). If you use or plan to use Next.js (a popular React framework), v0.dev can dramatically speed up prototyping UIs and hooking in Vercel’s services.

Key Features:

  • Generates Next.js Code: When you describe an interface, v0.dev produces actual Next.js project code. That includes React components, pages (app directory structure presumably), Tailwind CSS styling, and integration with any needed libraries or APIs. It specifically uses shadcn/UI (a library of accessible, themeable components) and Tailwind CSS for styling (v0.dev – Future Tools) (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections). This means the output code is high-quality and consistent with modern best practices. For example, “Create a login page with a username/password form and a submit button” will yield a fully coded Next.js page with appropriate components (likely using shadcn’s form components).
  • Real-time Preview & Editor: v0 has a live preview on the right side as you chat and make changes (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections). You can toggle between the preview and the code view. This is similar to ChatGPT’s “canvas” or Cursor’s IDE, but v0 is specialized: the preview is an actual web page environment (since Vercel is all about web deployment). It updates as changes are made, so you see the design immediately.
  • UI-focused Commands: You can instruct it to implement features like navigation, state management, data fetching, etc., but everything is within the context of a Next.js app. Some examples given: “Implement a Next.js 15 feature”, “Integrate Contentful API for blog posts”, “Help me debug a Next.js API route throwing 500” (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel) (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel). The AI always has the latest Next.js knowledge, as Vercel likely updates it with new releases (it even claims “v0 always has up-to-date info on Next.js features” (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel)).
  • Backend Integration for prototyping: While primarily UI, it can also create basic backend routes (Next.js API routes) and use Vercel integrations. For instance, “set up a form that on submit calls an API route to send an email”, v0 can implement the form in React and the corresponding API route (using say SendGrid if configured). It knows about environment variables and how to fetch secrets from Vercel’s system if needed (perhaps).
  • Next.js Migration Help: A neat use-case: you can paste or link to older code and ask v0 to migrate it to the latest Next.js conventions (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel). This is invaluable for developers upgrading from older Next.js versions to, say, Next 13 with the app directory. It specifically mentioned “help you migrate to new things in Next.js 15” (just hypothetical Next.js 15) (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel).
  • Collaboration Across Roles: Vercel markets v0 not just to devs, but also designers, content creators, etc. There’s mention of “content creators and marketers” using it to build full-stack apps connecting forms to CMS like Contentful or Sanity (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel). So, a non-dev can describe an idea (like “I need a landing page that collects emails and sends to Mailchimp”) and v0 can produce it. For developers, it’s a time-saver for boilerplate and repetitive tasks; for non-devs, it’s empowerment to create working prototypes without coding knowledge (especially if they learn some prompting patterns).

Integrations: v0 is deeply tied to Vercel’s ecosystem: Next.js (front-end), Vercel Hosting (deployment with custom subdomains as they noted (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel)), possibly Vercel OG image generation and Edge functions, and third-party services that Vercel often integrates (CMS, auth providers). Since it outputs actual code, you can switch to VS Code and continue or import into your own repo anytime. It’s also likely using OpenAI GPT-4 under the hood (since Vercel has a partnership with OpenAI for some features, and their AI SDK often calls OpenAI). But they might also fine-tune or provide the model additional context from docs (some AI tools retrieve relevant docs for e.g. “Next.js 13 documentation for forms” and feed it in prompt). The Vercel AI SDK (which they ask devs to use for building their own AI apps) supports these retrieval and tool usage patterns, so v0 likely uses that under the hood itself.

Pricing: Currently, v0.dev is in beta – it’s free to try if you get access (one can sign up with a Vercel account). In the future, Vercel might include it as part of a paid plan or usage-based pricing. Vercel might also treat it as a lead-in to get more deployments on their platform rather than a direct revenue source. Since no clear price is public, we’ll assume it’s free during beta. If it graduates, perhaps it will be a Pro feature or have a usage quota (like X generations per month free, then pay). For now, the cost isn’t a barrier.

User Reviews – Pros: Beta testers have been mind-blown (per a firsthand reflection (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections)). People were able to build a “functional, good-looking website in just an hour” which left them astonished (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections). The quality of output is highlighted – use of proper components, clean Tailwind classes, etc., meaning minimal fixes needed. Also, because it’s specialized, it often does the right thing for web devs without much back-and-forth. Users love that it “felt like magic – a series of jaw-drop moments” (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections), indicating how fluid the process was. The integration with deployment means once you’re satisfied, it’s very easy to share or go live. Another pro is latest knowledge: Next.js evolves fast, and Vercel ensures v0 knows the latest APIs. So, if you’re an experienced dev, you can use it to quickly adopt new Next.js features that you might not have full context on yet (like the new App Router when it first came out – an AI that already knows it can help implement it correctly). Non-dev feedback: Marketers found it useful for landing pages with forms – basically replacing the need to bother a developer for simple site updates. Because it produces code, no vendor lock-in fear, which is a plus for devs (they can always take over manually).

User Reviews – Cons: It’s a beta, so there are quirks. The reflection blog by Ann Jose notes “a few quirks… and what I wish it could do better” (Vercel v0.dev: A hands-on review · Reflections). Quirks likely included: the AI sometimes not perfectly aligning with the user’s vision (needing some prompt nudging), maybe difficulty handling truly complex state or interactivity (like multi-step interactions might confuse it slightly). Another possible con: it’s focused on UI, so if you need heavy backend logic like complex database queries or auth flows, it might stub something out and say “you’ll need to implement X”. But since it’s integrated with Vercel, maybe it can even handle auth via 3rd party (Auth0/NextAuth) if asked. The blogger also mentions “what I wish it could do better” – possibly multi-page flows or preserving state across steps. For example, if you design page A and page B separately, you might need to prompt to connect them (the AI might not infer you want a link from A to B unless told). Also as with any code generator, if you want a very custom design not covered by component library, it might be tough – though Tailwind allows fairly custom styling. Users also pointed out that sometimes the AI can misinterpret instructions – e.g. mixing up similar named components or creating duplicate styles – nothing catastrophic, just things to clean up. Another con: No multi-user collaboration yet (maybe in future). It’s one person chatting with AI; you can’t both chat with it at once with a colleague. But you can share the project code. And as always, if the design you want is very artistic or unique, the AI might give a “close but not exact” which designers might want to refine manually.

Technical Details: v0 uses the Next.js codebase generation. Likely sets up a new Next.js 13 project (with Tailwind configured, shadcn components installed). It might maintain a hidden “state” of the project structure that it updates with each instruction, or it literally reads the code files each time to decide how to modify. It definitely uses prompt engineering. e.g., system prompt probably says: “You are Vercel AI, expert in Next.js, Tailwind, etc. The user will describe features; you will output code diffs or new files as needed.” That sort of thing. It likely does not run code (like not executing in a sandbox), it’s more of a smart code generator with knowledge. For debugging, it probably relies on user to tell what the error is (like user saying “getting 500 error” and maybe pasting logs). It said you can “ask it to help debug a 500” (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel), meaning it expects you to present the error scenario, then it will analyze likely causes in code. So a bit more traditional LLM usage for debugging rather than actual runtime integration (contrasting with Replit or Bolt which run code automatically). On the deployment side, once code is ready you click deploy to Vercel (since it’s already a Vercel project, that’s straightforward). Possibly v0 can even handle creating a new Git repo or Vercel project via API if asked “deploy with custom domain X”.

Prompting Tips (v0.dev):

  • Be Specific in UI Descriptions: v0 is great at UI, but you need to articulate it. Use terms like “navbar, sidebar, modal, grid layout, card, etc.” For example: “Create a responsive navbar with my logo on the left and navigation links (Home, About, Contact) on the right.” This provides structure. It will likely use a shadcn Navbar component or compose one with Tailwind. The more clearly you describe the desired layout and elements, the closer the initial result.
  • Mention Data Needs Explicitly: If your UI needs dynamic data, tell the AI what the source is. “On the homepage, display a list of blog posts fetched from an external API (e.g., /api/posts endpoint).” v0 can then set up a data fetch in getServerSideProps or using SWR hooks, etc. If you don’t mention data, it might hardcode dummy content or skip that part.
  • Use Vercel/Next.js Terminology: Speak in terms of Next.js constructs: pages, components, props, state, etc. For instance, “Make a Next.js API route at /api/subscribe that takes an email and stores it (you can simulate storing by logging to console).” By using that language, the AI will know to create a file in app/api/subscribe/route.js or appropriate location with a handler.
  • Iterate Design Details: Once the basic structure is there, you can refine the design. “Change the color scheme to a dark theme.” Or “Use Tailwind classes to make the buttons large and primary-colored.” Since it knows Tailwind, you can even mention specific class names if you want: “Add bg-blue-500 to that button and rounded corners.” If you’re not sure, just say “make it more modern” or “make it look like Vercel’s homepage style” – it might infer some stylistic changes.
  • Incorporate Next.js Features: Ask it to add particular Next.js features: “Add a Next.js middleware that redirects users from /admin to /login if not logged in.” Or “Use NextAuth for authentication with GitHub provider.” It may scaffold the setup for you (though NextAuth requires some setup, the AI could at least install it and show how to configure providers). The tool is specifically updated on these, so it’s likely to succeed or at least give a starting point.
  • Break Complex Pages into Sections: If an app page is complex, describe section by section. E.g., “For the dashboard page: at the top, show a greeting with the user’s name; below that, show three stats cards in a grid (Total Sales, New Users, etc.) with icons; below that, a table of recent transactions.” This structured description will lead the AI to create a React component for each section or structure the JSX accordingly with Tailwind grids. If you dump a huge paragraph mixing UI and logic and content, it might confuse some parts.
  • Use Comments in Code for Guidance: If you decide to do a bit of manual editing or want to ensure the AI does something specific in code, you can put a // TODO comment and then ask it to fill it. E.g., in code put // TODO: fetch weather from OpenWeather API here then ask “Complete the TODO in the weather component.” The AI sees that context and will replace it with the fetch call code. This tactic helps focus the AI on exactly where to act.
  • Utilize Vercel Integrations: If you need to integrate something like Contentful, mention it: “Set up Contentful: fetch blog posts using Contentful’s GraphQL API (I’ll add the token as env variable).” v0 is likely aware of common steps (install Contentful SDK or use GraphQL fetch). It might not fully complete without the actual token, but it will scaffold code to use one. Similarly for analytics (like “add Vercel analytics tag”) or forms (use Vercel Forms if existed).
  • Ask for Explanations/Comments: If you’re not entirely comfortable with Next.js, you can tell the AI to add comments or explain. “Comment the code to explain each part.” Or after generation, “Explain how the dynamic routing works in this project.” It can teach you, which is great because it’s Vercel’s own tool – basically like having a Next.js expert tutor on call (Claude vs ChatGPT: Guide to Choosing the Best AI Tool).
  • Test and Refine Interactions: Use the preview actively. Click buttons, navigate links. If something doesn’t work (e.g., a form doesn’t actually submit because no handler), tell the AI. “The contact form doesn’t do anything on submit – make it send the data to my API and then show a success message.” Now that it has the context of a form, it can implement the missing piece.
  • Leverage Latest Knowledge: Don’t hesitate to ask about new or upcoming Next.js/Vercel features. For example, “Use the new <Image component improvements from Next.js 13. Optimize the images on the gallery page.” The AI is supposed to know these details up-to-date (Transforming how you work with v0 – Vercel), so you’ll likely get cutting-edge implementations, which is awesome for staying modern.
  • Final Touches – SEO and Performance: Ask it to handle SEO: “Add meta tags for SEO on each page using Next.js Head component.” Or performance: “Use lazy loading for the images below the fold.” These are smaller tasks but polish the project. The AI doing them saves you time combing through docs on how to properly implement.
  • Deploy and Share: Finally, ask “Deploy this project now.” It might either guide you or automatically trigger Vercel deploy (depending on integration; perhaps it gives instructions to click the deploy button). Once deployed, you’ll get a live link. If something only shows up in production (like an env var issue), you can prompt about that, but typically if it ran in preview it should in prod.

Conclusion:
This comprehensive analysis has compared the cutting-edge AI coding tools across features, use cases, and target users. From Cursor and Windsurf offering AI-assisted IDEs, to Bolt.new/DIY and Lovable automating full-stack app creation, to Replit Agent and v0.dev streamlining deployment and web UI development, each tool brings unique strengths. User experiences show these tools can significantly boost productivity – some developers report coding “10x faster” or focusing more on creative parts of development while the AI handles boilerplate (Claude vs ChatGPT: Guide to Choosing the Best AI Tool). However, we also saw that each has limitations and learning curves, and optimal results require the user to guide the AI with clear prompts and intervene when needed.

As AI continues to evolve, we can expect these tools to improve in reliability and capabilities. They are already proving to be valuable “co-pilots” for coding: speeding up routine tasks, offering suggestions, and even handling entire workflows. For beginners, they can lower the barrier to entry by handling syntax and setup, allowing focus on learning concepts. For experts, they act as force-multipliers, freeing time from grunt work to spend on architecture and tricky logic. Real-world reviews are largely positive but with a healthy dose of caution – treat the AI as an assistant, not a fully independent coder (yet). Keep an eye on model updates (Claude, GPT-4, etc.), as those directly impact each tool’s performance.

Final prompting advice: No matter which platform you use, remember that communication is key. Be clear and explicit with your AI partner, check its output, and use iteration to hone in on what you want. Provide context, ask for reasoning if unsure, and don’t shy away from pushing the AI to try again if something looks off. With the detailed prompt strategies provided for each tool, you’re equipped to harness their full potential. Happy coding with your new AI colleagues!

Filed Under: Uncategorized
About David Melamed

David Melamed is the Founder of Tenfold Traffic, a search and content marketing agency with over $50,000,000 of paid search experience and battle tested results in content development, premium content promotion and distribution, Link Profile Analysis, Multinational/Multilingual PPC and SEO, and Direct Response Copywriting.

Speak Your Mind

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.