Yes, it’s my daily driver for building the saas I run full-time. I’m not happy about this news.
I like the ability to switch between any models, Composer 2.5 is really solid, I like having my agents coworking in the IDE with me, the plan mode is great, Cloud Agents are great, especially with slack, linear, web, etc integrations. I routinely tag an error report in slack and Cursor fires up a Composer 2.5 cloud agent that has readonly db access, access to error reporting, etc, and it can triage the issue, issue a PR, and tag me in slack.
The only thing I’ve felt like I’m missing out on is the subsidies of the CC/Codex subscriptions, but it seems like that is rapidly eroding anyway.
It uses AI to replace a very niche human-powered workflow in a niche industry. That's all I'll say, but it's grown to about $30k MRR in the last year and is supporting my family, so the stakes feel pretty high to me.
I actually acquired this as a little side project from some guy online. I hadn’t even really heard of the niche, but I knew enough to know that it had some potential, and I could also see that it could be used for an adjacent market segment that I was pretty familiar with, because my dad worked in that segment when I was growing up. And the price was cheap because it just had a few users and was pretty new. All but one of those users cancelled in the couple months after I bought it, because it turned out the product just didn’t do what it claimed to. But I didn’t really care about that, because 1) I knew it could deliver if built correctly, and 2) I could just tell there was demand for this and it wouldn’t be that hard to sell.
So I turned off the signup form and started rebuilding it and improving it, but I kept getting people emailing me and wanting to sign up. No marketing, nothing. I held them off for almost 18 months while I rebuilt it on the side of my day job, and that gave me a ton of confidence that I was on the right track.
Then about a year ago I got laid off. I was really close to relaunching it at that point, so I used all my severance to go all in on it.
Not to my knowledge? But even if that's the case, Cursor seemed like they were doing fine without SpaceX, and I'd like to avoid giving a single cent to Elon Musk. You can do as you wish.
CC is mostly my default for large tasks / features (ex. Plan > execute plan ) Biggest gripe with Claude Code is that it is painfully slow relative to the other two.
Cursor for small stuff like bug fixes since it has a lot of models to choose from. I love the review/ diff / checkpoint features. It's planning feature is on par with CC. I'd probably use Cursor as primary driver if it had better cost efficiency. Next version or two of Composer may fill that gap in cost/quality/speed.
Codex isn't allowed at my work, but I use it for personal projects. It has the best balance of quality / cost / speed even if it's planner is poor and quite frankly the codex harness needs to catch up with the other two.
CC for quality / cost. Cursor for quality / speed. Codex for balance of the 3.
composer is competitive with around opus 4.5 in feeling?
largely lags behind opus4.7/gpt5.4, but is respectable, and generally outperforms the glm/qwen equivalents anecdotally despite benchmarks.
fails to follow instructions more often, and is less code critical, but performs okay if you can decompose the task to smaller problem spaces. i.e. only do manual review, only do typechecking, only do specific component. etc
I agree, Composer 2.5 is really good. I use it for all kinds of small tasks, and really for any kind of first pass at debugging, answering questions about the codebase, pulling data for reports, etc. It’s fast, pretty accurate, and basically free.
Yes, I still use it, although less than I would otherwise.
Good:
- Composer 2.5 is pretty decent for the quality / price ratio.
- Easy to assign an issue to it in Linear (I know Linear just added this natively for linear agent, but it seems rubbish compared to Cursor)
- Bugbot actually finds some useful issues (things Claude and Codex will miss)
- Using @cursor in github usually works well, and better than @copilot.
- Working with Python Monorepos with UV in their IDE. VSCode and Cursor work well here (Antigravity managed to screw it up somehow).
The Bad:
- Usage/billing dashboards - These are are opaque and you can't attribute what actions map to what spend.
- cursor won't follow PRs well like Claude Codes does.
- Setting up environments is less good than Claude Code
- Their IDE fork is woefully out of date, it'd be nice if it had more of the codeium fixes.
The Ugly:
- Settings - Try to turn off bugbot, there's multiple places you have to do it. Good luck figuring them all out.
- Support - they are polite, but gas light you and tell you it's your fault their product's settings are awful.
Linear employee here - if you have any specific feedback on our Claude/Codex integration, happy to hear it. Definitely a v1 so expect a number of fast follows up with some of the missing functionality like env customization, secrets, and code signing.
I was speaking more on the linear agent vs the existing integrations. We love the linear guided reviews and issue tracking so have high hopes on getting a good DX here from y'all.
The claude integration - works as well as anthropic will let it work, since you can either automate it (anywhere from 'claude -p xxxx' or the api and ignore your subscription and pay by the token, or open a crapton of tabs with the terminal, or paste it into a bunch of sessions in their app. Which works more-or-less but it's cheaper than per-token costs.
The linear agent, doesn't seem to read the AGENTS.md file, follow along on a PR nor nor let you configure a sandbox (it told me this:
```
Note: I couldn't run ruff/pytest here (no uv/venv in the sandbox), so I verified syntax via AST parse only. The Postgres-backed tests will run in CI.
```
After I asked it to look at the PR check failures.
To be fair, claude code does it 70% of the time (the other 30% the sandbox is dead), and cursor about 10% of the time.
