Cursor vs OpenCode

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions llms.txt, agent-oriented documentation ingestion, or a mechanism to point Cursor's agent at such files; only generic doc/MCP/tooling references are present. missing for 10: any mention of llms.txt support, crawling agent-oriented doc formats, or a documented feature for feeding external agent docs to Cursor's agent.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialprobed4/10

   OpenCode's own llms.txt file returns 404, so there is no dedicated llms.txt for agents, but probes show that docs pages are available in machine-readable Markdown form (.md suffix returns 200), which serves an analogous agent-oriented documentation function. There's no first-party statement about llms.txt support or explicit agent-doc pointing workflow. Missing for 10: an actual llms.txt endpoint, documentation instructing users to point agents at machine-readable docs, and confirmation that agents can consume the .md docs as intended.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://opencode.ai/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/docs/.md import { Tabs, TabItem } from "@astrojs/starlight/components" import config from "..…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialprobed6/10

   Cursor ships an official CLI (cursor.com/cli, curl installer) and background/cloud agents that run 'on schedules or triggers' to build and fix software autonomously, which implies non-interactive/headless automation. However, there is no explicit documentation of CI pipeline integration, exit codes, or scripting examples for pipelines. Missing for 10: explicit CI/CD integration docs (e.g., GitHub Actions example), documented headless flags/exit-code behavior, and independent confirmation of CLI use in automated pipelines.

   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://cursor.com/cli”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://cursor.com/install -fsS | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullprobed9/10

   OpenCode explicitly supports headless/CI use via `opencode run` for non-interactive execution, `opencode serve` for a headless HTTP server with OpenAPI, `--auto` for unattended permission approval, a JS/TS SDK for programmatic control, and a first-party GitHub Actions integration triggered by PR comments. This covers CLI scripting, server automation, and CI pipelines with concrete docs and an OpenAPI endpoint confirmed live. missing for 10: independent third-party validation of CI reliability at scale (community evidence mostly covers interactive TUI use, not CI-specific automation).

   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with --auto to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userPlug MCP servers into this product so it can use their tools

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cursor's docs explicitly describe MCP support: connecting to external tools/data sources, marketplace one-click install with OAuth, custom JSON server configuration, toggling servers, and enterprise admin controls over allowed servers. This directly matches the story of plugging in MCP servers so the agent can use their tools. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of MCP tool usage in practice and no community corroboration of the feature's reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables Cursor to connect to external tools and data sources.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Click "Add to Cursor" on a marketplace entry to install it and authenticate with OAuth.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure custom MCP servers with a JSON file”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise admins can control which MCP servers users may run from the Cursor dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Toggle servers on/off without removing them”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullclaimed9/10

   OpenCode has first-party documentation dedicated to adding external tools via MCP, supporting both local and remote servers, directly matching the story. This is corroborated indirectly by community discussion of OpenCode's tool/agent ecosystem, though no hands-on account specifically tests MCP server plugging. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation specifically of MCP server usage (community evidence discusses agents/tools generally but not MCP specifically).

   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the Model Context Protocol, or MCP.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor✓fullprobed8/10

   Cursor documents an official CLI with an install command (curl https://cursor.com/install) and a dedicated CLI docs page (cursor.com/cli), confirming a first-party terminal tool for AI-native workflows. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of CLI capabilities and depth of documentation beyond install instructions.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://cursor.com/install -fsS | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://cursor.com/cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullprobed9/10

   OpenCode ships an official CLI with documented commands (opencode run, opencode serve, init, install via curl/npm) and dedicated CLI docs, corroborated by community users who actively use it as their primary daily-driver harness. Missing for 10: independent benchmarking of CLI completeness/stability beyond anecdotal community reports (some bug complaints noted but not disputing existence of an official CLI).

   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl -fsSL https://opencode.ai/install | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g opencode-ai”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://opencode.ai/docs/cli/”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialprobed3/10

   Evidence shows an official CLI (cursor.com/cli) that lets users invoke Cursor from scripts, which partially satisfies 'driving the product programmatically,' but there is no documented public REST/SDK API, authentication scheme, or endpoint reference — MCP docs describe Cursor consuming external tools, not exposing itself as an API. Missing for 10: documented REST/GraphQL API, SDK/client libraries, API authentication and rate-limit docs, independent corroboration of programmatic usage.

   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://cursor.com/cli”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://cursor.com/install -fsS | bash”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullprobed8/10

   OpenCode ships a documented headless server (`opencode serve`) exposing an OpenAPI endpoint, confirmed live via probe (opencode-probe-3), plus a type-safe JS/TS SDK for programmatic control, and its CLI supports non-interactive scripted use (`opencode run`). missing for 10: independent third-party corroboration of SDK/API usage in production, and no evidence of versioning/stability guarantees or broader language SDK support beyond JS/TS.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [claimed-docs] “Attach a terminal to an already running OpenCode backend server started via `serve` or `web` commands.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userIssue scoped/least-privilege API credentials for an agent

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence Cursor lets users mint scoped or least-privilege API credentials for agents; docs cover MCP server toggling and enterprise admin control of which servers can run, but nothing about issuing scoped/limited API keys or credentials specifically for agent use.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed3/10

   OpenCode's permission config lets you restrict which actions (edit, bash, etc.) an agent may auto-run, prompt for, or block, and enterprise SSO integration centralizes access to an internal AI gateway — both are adjacent to least-privilege agent control, but neither is a mechanism for issuing scoped API credentials/keys specifically to an agent. missing for 10: explicit scoped API-key/credential issuance for agents, credential expiry/rotation, per-agent key scoping documentation, independent verification of this capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This centralized config can integrate with your SSO provider and ensures all users access only your internal AI gateway.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   Evidence shows Cursor offers a CLI, MCP integration, and marketplace extensions, but there is no mention of any official SDK (e.g., a documented library/API package) for developers to build against Cursor itself.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullprobed8/10

   OpenCode documents a dedicated JS/TS SDK ('type-safe client for interacting with the server... use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically') plus a headless server mode (`opencode serve`) exposing an OpenAPI endpoint, confirmed live by probe (openapi.json returns valid schema). This gives AI-native users official, documented programmatic access beyond the CLI/TUI. Missing for 10: independent hands-on developer reports of building against the SDK, and broader multi-language SDK coverage beyond JS/TS.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   Evidence covers MCP integration, background agents, and IDE integrations, but there is no mention of a webhook subscription mechanism for external event notifications.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   Evidence shows OpenCode has a headless server (`opencode serve`) exposing an OpenAPI/HTTP endpoint and an SDK for programmatic control, but there is no mention anywhere of webhook subscriptions or event-push notifications that clients could register for.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor✓fullclaimed7/10

   Cursor's core value proposition is analyzing the user's codebase to surface AI-generated insights (tracing repo structure, finding root causes, reviewing diffs) and suggestions for next actions, as documented across multiple first-party docs. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on evidence validating the accuracy or depth of these insights, and no detail on insight types beyond code-centric suggestions (e.g., data analytics or business data outside code).

   • [claimed-docs] “Trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start”
   • [claimed-docs] “Scope changes, use Plan Mode, and ship bigger work with confidence”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reproduce issues, narrow the root cause, and verify the fix”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode's plan/explore agents let users get AI-generated code analysis and suggested changes without modifying the codebase, directly matching the story of AI-generated insights over the user's data (their code) (opencode-docs-7, opencode-docs-60, opencode-docs-61). Community mentions confirm active use of the agent for analysis/harness work (opencode-comm-1, opencode-comm-3). Missing for 10: independent examples of insight quality/output, and no evidence of insights beyond code (e.g., broader data analytics).

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the plan agent to analyze code and review suggestions without making any code changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cursor explicitly documents 'always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software' and 'fleets of agents that work in parallel for hours or days,' directly matching autonomous background automation. This is first-party vendor documentation without independent hands-on corroboration of scheduling/triggers working reliably. Missing for 10: independent/community verification that scheduled/triggered background agents work reliably in practice, and more detail on trigger configuration options.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode ships a documented GitHub Actions integration where mentioning /opencode or /oc in a comment triggers it to autonomously work in a new branch and submit a PR, plus a headless `serve` mode and `--auto` permission flag that let it run unattended, supporting background automations. However there's no dedicated scheduling/cron mechanism, and community evidence flags reliability issues (stuck sessions, tool-call failures) that undercut confidence in unattended runs. missing for 10: scheduled/triggered automation beyond GitHub comment mentions, independent evidence of long-running unattended background jobs succeeding reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userDelegate tasks to a built-in AI assistant inside the product

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cursor✓fullclaimed9/10

   Cursor's docs clearly describe delegating tasks to built-in agents that plan, code, test, and demo work end-to-end while the user focuses on review/decisions, including background/parallel agents and always-on scheduled agents. This is a core, heavily documented capability of the product, though independent hands-on validation of agent task quality is thin (only general community commentary, some critical, exists). Missing for 10: deeper independent verification of agent task success rates beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Scope changes, use Plan Mode, and ship bigger work with confidence”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity9/10

   OpenCode's core function is exactly this: an AI coding agent you delegate tasks to via CLI/TUI/IDE/desktop ('opencode run "Explain how closures work..."'), with multiple agent personas (build, plan, explore) and multi-session parallel delegation, richly documented and corroborated by extensive hands-on community use as a daily coding harness. Missing for 10: no independent benchmark of delegation reliability across all model backends (some community reports of failed tool calls/edits with local models).

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use the **Tab** key to switch between primary agents during a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “Claude is much better in OpenCode then in Claude Code, OpenCode is just better than Claude Code. Claude Code feels like a complete mess to u…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOperate the product with natural-language commands

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cursor's core interaction model is natural-language driven agents that plan, code, test, and operate across terminal/Slack/GitHub (cursor-docs-2, cursor-docs-8, cursor-docs-9, cursor-docs-10, cursor-docs-11), consistent with an AI-native product. Missing for 10: independent hands-on evidence specifically validating natural-language command reliability/accuracy (community evidence focuses on bugginess/pricing complaints unrelated to NL command capability itself).

   • [claimed-docs] “Scope changes, use Plan Mode, and ship bigger work with confidence”
   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity9/10

   OpenCode's core interface is natural-language driven: the CLI example `opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"` and TUI/desktop/IDE modes are all built around conversational prompts to an AI agent that then edits code, opens branches, and submits PRs. Community usage (comm-1, comm-3, comm-4, comm-11) confirms this is how real users operate it day-to-day as their primary coding harness. Missing for 10: no independent benchmark specifically validating breadth of natural-language command coverage beyond docs/anecdotes.

   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “Claude is much better in OpenCode then in Claude Code, OpenCode is just better than Claude Code. Claude Code feels like a complete mess to u…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userExplore an interactive API reference with runnable examples

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence of an interactive API reference with runnable examples for Cursor; docs entries describe product features and MCP setup but nothing about an API reference or executable code samples.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialprobed3/10

   OpenCode exposes a raw OpenAPI spec via `opencode serve` and openapi.json, and offers an SDK for programmatic use, but there is no evidence of an actual interactive API reference UI (e.g., Swagger/Redoc-style docs) with runnable/try-it examples. Missing for 10: dedicated interactive API explorer page, runnable code examples, independent confirmation of such a UI existing.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence of Cursor publishing a downloadable OpenAPI or equivalent machine-readable API spec; docs reference MCP config and CLI but not an API spec.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullprobed9/10

   The docs explicitly state that `opencode serve` runs a headless HTTP server exposing an OpenAPI endpoint, and a live probe confirms a downloadable machine-readable OpenAPI spec at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json. This directly satisfies the story of downloading a machine-readable API spec. Missing for 10: independent/community corroboration of using this OpenAPI spec in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions API versioning or a deprecation policy for Cursor's APIs (CLI, extensions, or MCP config); docs cover features like MCP setup, agents, and integrations but nothing about version stability guarantees or deprecation timelines.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode does expose programmatic surfaces (the JS/TS SDK, `opencode serve` HTTP server, and an OpenAPI spec at openapi.json), so an API-versioning/deprecation-policy axis is applicable. However, none of the evidence mentions API version numbers, backward-compatibility guarantees, or any documented deprecation policy/process for the SDK or server API.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor~partialclaimed5/10

   Cursor supports launching 'fleets of agents' in parallel and always-on scheduled/triggered agents, which enables some multi-item automation, but there's no direct evidence of bulk operations across many discrete items (e.g., bulk file edits, batch refactors, or multi-repo operations) as a first-class feature. missing for 10: explicit documentation or hands-on evidence of bulk/batch operations across many items (files, tickets, repos), user-facing UI for selecting many items at once, and independent corroboration of this working in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed4/10

   OpenCode's CLI (`opencode run`), SDK, and headless `opencode serve` provide programmatic hooks that could be scripted to loop over many files/tasks, and 'multi-session' lets multiple agents run in parallel on a project — but there is no documented first-class 'bulk operation' feature (e.g. batch refactor, mass file edit) or example of applying one command across many items at once. Missing for 10: explicit bulk/batch operation feature, documentation or examples of running the same task across many files/repos, independent evidence of successful large-scale batch use.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDefine rules that trigger actions automatically on events

   weight 3 · round to Cursor
   Cursor~partialclaimed6/10

   Cursor docs describe 'always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers' and a way to 'add rules' from one place, matching the idea of rule-based automation triggered by events. However the evidence pack doesn't detail how rules are authored/scoped to specific events beyond the marketing blurb, and there's no independent/hands-on confirmation of this automation working as described. Missing for 10: concrete rule-definition syntax/examples, independent verification that scheduled/triggered agents reliably fire on events, and detail on event types supported.

   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add plugins, skills, MCPs, and rules from one place”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode supports some automatic rule-triggered behavior: GitHub integration lets a PR/issue comment mention (`/opencode` or `/oc`) automatically trigger the agent to execute tasks in a GitHub Actions runner, and the `permission` config lets you define rules for auto-approving, prompting, or blocking specific tool actions. This covers event-triggered automation in a narrow sense, but there's no general-purpose, user-defined event/rule engine (e.g., file-change hooks, cron-like triggers, custom event listeners) described in the docs. Missing for 10: a general automation/hooks system beyond GitHub comment mentions and permission gating, and independent evidence confirming reliability of these triggers in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the permission config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “For most permissions, you can use an object to apply different actions based on the tool input.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed7/10

   Cursor documents 'always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software,' directly matching recurring scheduled workflow automation, alongside parallel agent fleets for ambitious tasks. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of scheduling reliability, details on trigger configuration options, and any community corroboration of this specific feature working in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence of any scheduling, cron-like, or recurring workflow trigger capability; OpenCode's docs cover CLI, agents, MCP, permissions, SDK, GitHub Actions triggers, and server mode but none describe scheduling or recurring automation. missing for 10: any scheduler/cron feature, recurring job configuration, or workflow trigger on a schedule.

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userVersion, review, and roll back my automations

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   Evidence shows Cursor can inspect diffs and review changes before merge, but there is no documented capability to version, review, or roll back the automations themselves (e.g., scheduled/always-on agents, rules, MCP configs) as distinct artifacts with history/rollback support.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   Evidence covers agent creation, permissions, sessions, and sharing, but there is no documentation or community mention of versioning automations, reviewing change history, or rolling back agent/workflow configurations — session share links are for reference/debugging, not version control or rollback.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This command will guide you through creating a new agent with a custom system prompt and permission configuration.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Background execution

1. ai-native userHave a cloud agent build, test, and demo a feature end-to-end for my review

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed7/10

   Cursor's docs explicitly describe cloud/background agents that 'use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review,' plus the ability to launch fleets of agents working in parallel for hours/days, and always-on scheduled agents — directly matching the story. Corroboration is entirely first-party marketing/docs rather than independent hands-on verification of an actual demo workflow. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on evidence confirming the build-test-demo loop works reliably end-to-end, and detail on what 'demo' concretely produces (e.g., preview links, recordings).

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed6/10

   OpenCode's GitHub integration lets it work in a new branch and submit a PR autonomously when mentioned via `/opencode` in GitHub Actions, and its share-links/session feature lets a reviewer inspect the agent's work — together covering 'build' and 'demo for review' in a cloud context. However, there is no explicit documentation of an automated testing step as part of this workflow, and the 'cloud agent' aspect relies on self-hosted GitHub Actions runners rather than a dedicated managed cloud agent service. Missing for 10: explicit test-execution/validation step in the PR workflow, and a first-party fully-hosted cloud agent (not just Actions-runner based) with demo artifacts.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerDelegate longer-running coding tasks to run in the background in an isolated cloud environment

   weight 3 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cursor documents cloud/background agents ('Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end', 'Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days', and hand-off delegation while the developer focuses elsewhere), matching the isolated cloud-background-task story. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of the background agent's isolation/reliability and details on session duration limits or failure modes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode documents GitHub integration where mentioning /opencode or /oc triggers it to work in a new branch and submit a PR, executing tasks inside the GitHub Actions runner (an isolated cloud environment), which supports background delegation of coding tasks. However, there's no dedicated general-purpose 'cloud agent' product, persistent cloud session management, or evidence of handling arbitrarily long-running tasks outside the GitHub Actions context. missing for 10: a dedicated hosted/cloud sandbox environment independent of GitHub Actions, evidence of long-running task monitoring/resumption in the cloud, and independent hands-on confirmation of this workflow succeeding.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. developerConfigure a reproducible cloud environment with the dependencies and setup steps my repository needs

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor~partialclaimed4/10

   Cursor's docs mention cloud/background agents that 'use their own computers to build, test, and demo features' and can be launched in fleets or run on schedules, implying some cloud execution environment, but there's no evidence pack detail on how a developer configures dependencies, install scripts, or a reproducible environment spec (e.g. Dockerfile/environment.json) for these agents. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of environment configuration format, dependency/setup step definition, and evidence of reproducibility across runs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   The evidence shows OpenCode as a terminal/IDE agent with GitHub PR automation and a headless `serve` mode, but nothing describes a mechanism for developers to declare a reproducible cloud environment (base image, dependencies, setup scripts) that the agent provisions before running. Missing for 10: any devcontainer/config-file spec for cloud sandbox provisioning, dependency installation steps, or documented cloud execution environment configuration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This centralized config can integrate with your SSO provider and ensures all users access only your internal AI gateway.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Parallel agents

1. ai-native userLaunch fleets of autonomous agents that work in parallel on different tasks for hours or days

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   First-party marketing/docs explicitly state the exact capability: "Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days," plus supporting evidence of background/always-on agents and agents using their own compute to build/test/demo. No independent hands-on verification of multi-day parallel fleet execution is present, and no community corroboration confirms this specific feature works at scale. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation of parallel agent fleets running for hours/days, details on concurrency limits or reliability over long runs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode documents multi-session support ('Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project'), subagents with per-agent model choice, and GitHub Actions integration where mentioning /opencode lets it execute unattended tasks and open PRs — all pointing toward parallel, semi-autonomous agent operation. However, there is no explicit documentation or evidence of orchestrating large 'fleets' of agents or of sustained autonomous operation over hours/days, and community reports note agents 'randomly stuck, especially for long/nested sessions,' undercutting long-horizon reliability. Missing for 10: dedicated fleet-management/orchestration tooling, explicit hours/days-long autonomous run support, and independent confirmation of stable long-running parallel agent execution.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerRun several task attempts in parallel and compare results before choosing one

   weight 1 · round to Cursor
   Cursor~partialclaimed6/10

   Cursor's docs describe launching 'fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days,' directly supporting parallel task execution, and agents run in isolated environments for review before merging changes. However, there is no explicit documentation of a UI/workflow for comparing multiple parallel attempts side-by-side before choosing one, and no independent/hands-on evidence corroborating this specific comparison workflow. Missing for 10: dedicated compare/diff-across-attempts feature documentation, independent verification of parallel-agent comparison in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialcommunity4/10

   OpenCode documents 'multi-session' support to start multiple agents in parallel on the same project (opencode-docs-17/38) and share links to sessions for reference/debugging (opencode-docs-18/37), which enables running parallel work and inspecting different sessions. However, there is no documented feature for running multiple attempts at the *same* task specifically to compare outcomes and pick a winner (e.g., no diff/compare UI or attempt-ranking workflow), and community threads discuss general session-state bugs rather than this comparison workflow. Missing for 10: explicit same-task multi-attempt spawning, a built-in comparison/diff view across attempts, and evidence of choosing/merging the best result.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Scheduled automation

1. ai-native userSet up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to maintain and fix my software autonomously

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cursor's own site directly states the capability: "Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software," plus related background-agent features (parallel fleets, agents running on their own machines) that support this workflow. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation of scheduled/triggered agents actually running reliably in practice, and more detail on trigger types/configuration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode documents CLI/TUI/desktop agents, permission automation, GitHub Actions integration triggered by comments, and a headless server/SDK, but there is no evidence of scheduling (cron-like) or event-trigger-based always-on autonomous agents that proactively maintain/fix software without a user or PR-comment invocation. The GitHub integration is triggered by manual mentions, not autonomous scheduled monitoring. Missing for 10: scheduled/cron-based agent runs, event-driven triggers beyond manual mentions, autonomous 'always-on' background maintenance capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Code completion

1. developerReceive inline code completions and next-edit suggestions as I type

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no first-party documentation or hands-on account describing Cursor's own inline code completion or next-edit suggestion feature; only tangential community references compare competitors' tab-completion tools (e.g., Continue, SuperMaven) without confirming or detailing Cursor's implementation. Missing for 10: any first-party doc on Cursor's Tab/inline completion feature, hands-on confirmation it works as typed, and mention of 'next-edit' suggestion behavior.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode is presented as an agent-driven terminal/desktop/IDE-extension tool that responds to explicit prompts, runs agents, and edits files via chat-like sessions — there is no mention of inline ghost-text completions or next-edit suggestions as the developer types. The IDE integration docs describe opening a terminal split and inserting file references, not autocomplete.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal. Just run `opencode` in the terminal to get started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Esc (Mac) or Ctrl+Esc (Windows/Linux) to open OpenCode in a split terminal view”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Option+K (Mac) or Alt+Ctrl+K (Linux/Windows) to insert file references.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Debugging

1. developerDebug issues and troubleshoot using natural-language queries

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialcommunity6/10

   cursor-docs-3 directly claims support for reproducing issues, narrowing root cause, and verifying fixes via natural-language-driven agent workflows, and docs-1 supports tracing how a repo fits together to find bug locations. However, there's no independent/hands-on evidence corroborating debugging quality, and community evidence highlights buginess and unreliability concerns (cursor-comm-2, cursor-comm-8) that add caveats without directly contradicting the specific debugging workflow claim. Missing for 10: independent verification of debugging accuracy, concrete examples of NL-driven troubleshooting sessions, and resolution of buggy-product complaints.

   • [claimed-docs] “Trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reproduce issues, narrow the root cause, and verify the fix”
   • [community] “"Cursor is weird. They have a basically unused GitHub with a thousand unanswered Issues. It's so buggy in ways that VSCode isn't. I hate it.…”
   • [community] “"That's a lot of money for a buggy product that is at best slightly better than its competitors."”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode is a terminal/IDE-based coding agent that takes natural-language queries (e.g. `opencode run "Explain how closures work..."`), can explore/read codebases via a dedicated read-only agent, and auto-loads LSPs so it can surface diagnostics/errors while chatting, all of which supports NL-driven debugging and troubleshooting; community users confirm using it as a daily 'harness' with good LSP integration for real work. missing for 10: no dedicated 'debug' or troubleshooting workflow docs, and community reports of failed tool calls/unreliable file edits with some models introduce real-world friction.

   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “LSP enabled Automatically loads the right LSPs for the LLM”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Feature implementation

1. developerTurn a tracked issue into a complete pull request end-to-end

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialclaimed7/10

   Cursor's docs describe agents that trace repos, plan changes, reproduce issues, inspect diffs/run checks, and integrate with issue trackers (GitHub, Linear) and PR review, which together support a full issue-to-PR workflow (cursor-docs-1 through cursor-docs-4, cursor-docs-6, cursor-docs-8–cursor-docs-12). However, there's no explicit first-party or independent case study showing a single tracked issue being turned into a merged PR end-to-end without manual intervention, and community evidence focuses on unrelated bugs/pricing complaints rather than this workflow. Missing for 10: a concrete end-to-end example/case study of issue→PR automation and independent verification that the full pipeline works reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start”
   • [claimed-docs] “Scope changes, use Plan Mode, and ship bigger work with confidence”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reproduce issues, narrow the root cause, and verify the fix”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”
   • [claimed-docs] “Work with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket, JetBrains, Slack, Linear, and more”
   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs explicitly state OpenCode can be asked to fix an issue or implement a feature, working in a new branch and submitting a PR with all changes, and it integrates with GitHub Actions via /opencode mentions to run tasks end-to-end. This directly covers issue-to-PR automation, though evidence is vendor-documented only without independent hands-on confirmation of the full issue-to-PR flow succeeding. Missing for 10: independent/community verification of a successful end-to-end issue-to-PR run, and detail on how issue tracking (e.g., linking to GitHub issues specifically) is handled beyond the GitHub Actions integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerDescribe a feature or bug in plain language and have the agent implement or fix it across multiple files

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cursor✓fullcommunity8/10

   Cursor's docs describe an agent that traces repo structure, plans and scopes multi-file changes, implements features/fixes end-to-end, runs checks, and produces diffs for review — directly matching plain-language feature/bug requests across multiple files. Community evidence corroborates the product is used daily for this purpose (albeit with complaints about bugginess), without disputing the core multi-file agentic editing capability. Missing for 10: independent hands-on benchmarks showing successful multi-file fixes, and no first-party demo/case study detailing a concrete before/after example.

   • [claimed-docs] “Trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start”
   • [claimed-docs] “Scope changes, use Plan Mode, and ship bigger work with confidence”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reproduce issues, narrow the root cause, and verify the fix”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”
   • [community] “"Cursor is weird. They have a basically unused GitHub with a thousand unanswered Issues. It's so buggy in ways that VSCode isn't. I hate it.…”
   • [community] “"That's a lot of money for a buggy product that is at best slightly better than its competitors."”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode is explicitly a coding agent that takes plain-language instructions and edits code, with docs describing it fixing issues/implementing features and submitting PRs (opencode-docs-12), a CLI for prompting tasks (opencode-docs-22), and permission/auto-approve config for autonomous multi-file changes (opencode-docs-13/14). Community reports corroborate real-world multi-file coding use, with several users calling it their primary harness replacing Aider/Claude Code (opencode-comm-1, opencode-comm-3, opencode-comm-4, opencode-comm-11, opencode-comm-14), though some report unreliable file edits with certain local models and failed tool calls in general (opencode-comm-10, opencode-comm-12). Missing for 10: independent benchmark data on multi-file edit accuracy, and resolution of the reported local-model editing reliability issues.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “Claude is much better in OpenCode then in Claude Code, OpenCode is just better than Claude Code. Claude Code feels like a complete mess to u…”
   • [community] “OpenCode is awesome. Claude Code is nothing special at all. Last month I switched to just using OpenCode with a Codex $200/mo subscription, …”
   • [community] “I haven't been able to successfully get their CLI to reliably edit files when using local models, anybody else having the same problem?”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Maintenance automation

1. developerHave the agent write tests, fix lint errors, resolve merge conflicts, and update dependencies for me

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cursor~partialclaimed6/10

   Cursor's docs describe agents that write code, run tests/checks, and 'build, maintain, and fix' software autonomously (cursor-docs-3, cursor-docs-4, cursor-docs-9, cursor-docs-12), which implies test-writing and general maintenance tasks, but there is no explicit documentation of lint-error fixing, merge-conflict resolution, or dependency-update workflows specifically. missing for 10: explicit lint-fixing examples, explicit merge-conflict-resolution examples, explicit dependency-update examples, independent hands-on verification of these specific tasks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reproduce issues, narrow the root cause, and verify the fix”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode is documented as a general-purpose coding agent that can edit files, run shell commands, and even autonomously fix issues and submit PRs (opencode-docs-12, opencode-docs-58), which implies it can perform tasks like writing tests, fixing lint, resolving conflicts, and updating deps as generic coding actions. However, none of the docs explicitly call out test-writing, lint-fixing, merge-conflict resolution, or dependency updates as named capabilities, and community reports note reliability gaps such as failed tool calls and unreliable file edits especially with local models (opencode-comm-10, opencode-comm-12). Missing for 10: explicit documentation or hands-on evidence of test generation, lint-fix workflows, merge-conflict resolution, and dependency-update automation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “I haven't been able to successfully get their CLI to reliably edit files when using local models, anybody else having the same problem?”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Multimodal generation

1. ai-native userGenerate a working app from a sketch, image, or PDF design

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack describes image/sketch/PDF-to-app generation, multimodal design input, or any UI-from-design workflow; the docs snippets cover repo navigation, plan mode, agents, MCP, and integrations but nothing about visual design inputs.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode's evidence pack shows a terminal/IDE-based coding agent with text prompts, MCP, agents, and CLI/SDK, but there is no mention anywhere of image, sketch, or PDF design input being converted into a working app — no vision/multimodal input capability is documented.

   ⚑ flag

Codebase mapping

1. developerUnderstand how a codebase fits together to find where to start making changes

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialclaimed6/10

   Cursor's docs explicitly claim the ability to 'trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start,' directly matching the story, but this is a single marketing-style doc line with no detailed walkthrough, feature docs (e.g., codebase indexing/@codebase chat), or independent corroboration of how it actually surfaces architecture understanding. Missing for 10: detailed documentation of the codebase-mapping/indexing feature itself, concrete examples of it locating relevant code, and independent/hands-on validation of accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode ships a dedicated read-only 'explore' agent for scanning codebases and a 'plan' agent that analyzes code and proposes changes without modifying files, backed by automatic LSP loading for the right language context and skills that surface repo-specific instructions; community notes call the LSP integration 'great' for understanding code. Missing for 10: no dedicated codebase-mapping/visualization feature, no independent benchmark of comprehension quality, and no first-hand user account describing successful architecture-level onboarding via these agents.

   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the plan agent to analyze code and review suggestions without making any code changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “LSP enabled Automatically loads the right LSPs for the LLM”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory. Skills are loaded on-demand via the native `skill…”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerHave the agent map and explain an entire unfamiliar codebase without manually selecting context files

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialclaimed4/10

   First-party docs claim Cursor can 'trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start' (cursor-docs-1), implying automatic codebase mapping, but there's no detail on how context is auto-gathered (e.g., codebase indexing/@codebase) nor any independent/hands-on confirmation that it explains an unfamiliar codebase without manual file selection. Missing for 10: technical explanation of automatic context retrieval, independent user validation of whole-codebase explanation, and comparison to manual context selection workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “Trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode ships a dedicated read-only 'explore' agent explicitly for exploring codebases and a plan agent for analyzing code without edits, plus automatic LSP loading that gives it broader code awareness without manual file picking. However there's no documented feature for generating a full repo map/summary or explicit 'explain this whole codebase' workflow beyond agent tool use (e.g. grep/glob/read), and no independent hands-on evidence confirming it successfully maps a large unfamiliar codebase end-to-end. Missing for 10: explicit repo-map/codebase-summary feature, hands-on/independent confirmation of whole-codebase explanation without manual context selection.

   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “LSP enabled Automatically loads the right LSPs for the LLM”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Context management

1. developerHave the agent build and recall memory automatically across sessions

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence describes persistent memory that automatically builds and recalls context across sessions; docs mention repo tracing, plan mode, and MCP integrations but nothing about cross-session memory recall.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack describes any persistent memory feature that automatically builds or recalls context/knowledge across separate sessions; docs cover sessions, sharing, agents, MCP, skills, and permissions, but nothing about automatic cross-session memory persistence or recall.

   ⚑ flag

2. developerInclude multiple project directories in a single session for broader context

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions multi-root workspaces or including multiple project directories in a single Cursor session; docs cover repo navigation, MCP, agents, and integrations but not multi-directory context.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   The evidence shows a permission flag (`external_directory`) that lets tool calls touch paths outside the working directory, but there is no documentation or community report describing a way to add multiple project directories into a single session for combined context. Multi-session and multi-agent features are about running parallel sessions, not merging directories into one context.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use external_directory to allow tool calls that touch paths outside the working directory where OpenCode was started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. developerAdd a project instructions file to set coding standards and conventions the agent follows

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialclaimed3/10

   Cursor's docs mention adding 'rules' as one of its features (alongside plugins, skills, MCPs) which aligns with the project-instructions concept, but the evidence pack gives no detail on how project rule files work, their scope, or how the agent applies them to enforce coding standards. missing for 10: documentation of the rules file format/location, examples of coding standards enforcement, independent confirmation the agent actually follows these instructions consistently.

   • [claimed-docs] “Add plugins, skills, MCPs, and rules from one place”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode's docs mention an `opencode init` step to set up a project (docs-21/39/56) and 'Agent skills' that let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from a repo or home directory (docs-8/28), which suggests some mechanism for project-level guidance, but no evidence explicitly describes a dedicated instructions/config file (e.g., AGENTS.md) for coding standards and conventions. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of a project instructions file format, guidance on writing coding-standards content into it, and independent/hands-on confirmation that the agent actually follows such a file.

   • [claimed-docs] “initialize OpenCode for the project by running the following command.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Next, initialize OpenCode for the project by running the following command.”
   • [claimed-docs] “initialize OpenCode for the project by running the following command”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory. Skills are loaded on-demand via the native `skill…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Issue diagnosis

1. developerReproduce issues, narrow down root causes, and verify fixes

   weight 3 · round to Cursor
   Cursor~partialclaimed6/10

   cursor-docs-3 directly claims the exact capability ('Reproduce issues, narrow the root cause, and verify the fix'), and supporting docs on codebase tracing, diffs/checks, and agents running their own environments (cursor-docs-1, cursor-docs-4, cursor-docs-12) plausibly back this workflow. However, this is a first-party marketing/docs claim only, with no independent or hands-on corroboration of actual debugging workflows, and community evidence highlights general bugginess/quality concerns rather than validating this specific capability. Missing for 10: independent verification or hands-on case studies of reproduce/root-cause/verify-fix workflows, more detail on how reproduction (e.g., test running, log inspection) is concretely supported.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reproduce issues, narrow the root cause, and verify the fix”
   • [claimed-docs] “Trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialcommunity5/10

   OpenCode's general coding-agent capabilities (shell/tool execution, LSP integration, a read-only 'explore' agent, and a 'plan' agent for analysis without changes) imply support for investigating bugs and iterating on fixes, and community feedback confirms strong LSP-based codebase navigation. However, there is no explicit documentation of a reproduce/debug/verify workflow, test running, or root-cause tooling, and community reports cite failed tool calls and agents getting stuck on long sessions, undermining reliability for this exact workflow. Missing for 10: explicit debugging/test-execution documentation, first-party guidance on reproducing bugs or verifying fixes, and independent hands-on confirmation of successful root-cause workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “I've been trying various harnesses like Pi, OpenCode, Qwen Code, and Nanocoder. A common problem I keep running into is failed tool calls, r…”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Marketplace

1. developerEquip the agent with custom skills to perform specialized tasks

   weight 1 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialclaimed6/10

   Cursor's docs mention a marketplace to 'Add plugins, skills, MCPs, and rules from one place' and detailed MCP support (custom servers, marketplace install, enterprise controls), enabling developers to extend the agent with specialized tool integrations. However, there's no dedicated documentation on a 'skills' framework distinct from MCP/rules, no examples of custom skill creation workflow, and no independent/community corroboration of this specific capability. Missing for 10: detailed skills documentation/tutorial, examples of custom skill authoring, independent hands-on validation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Add plugins, skills, MCPs, and rules from one place”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables Cursor to connect to external tools and data sources.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Click "Add to Cursor" on a marketplace entry to install it and authenticate with OAuth.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure custom MCP servers with a JSON file”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise admins can control which MCP servers users may run from the Cursor dashboard.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode has a dedicated 'Agent Skills' feature that lets it discover reusable, on-demand instructions from repo or home directory via a native `skill` tool, directly matching the custom-skills story, and this is corroborated by community praise for its subagents/customizability. Missing for 10: no independent hands-on report specifically testing custom skill authoring/loading, and no detail on skill packaging/sharing ecosystem.

   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory. Skills are loaded on-demand via the native `skill…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agent skills let OpenCode discover reusable instructions from your repo or home directory.”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadIntegrate third-party partner-built agent apps into my workflows

   weight 1 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed7/10

   Cursor documents a marketplace for adding third-party plugins, skills, and MCP servers with OAuth authentication, plus native integrations with GitHub, GitLab, Slack, Linear, and more, letting teams plug partner-built tools/agents into their workflows, with enterprise admin controls over which servers are allowed. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of using specific partner-built agent apps (vs. generic tool connectors) and clearer distinction between simple MCP data-tools and full third-party 'agent apps'.

   • [claimed-docs] “Add plugins, skills, MCPs, and rules from one place”
   • [claimed-docs] “Work with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket, JetBrains, Slack, Linear, and more”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables Cursor to connect to external tools and data sources.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Click "Add to Cursor" on a marketplace entry to install it and authenticate with OAuth.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure custom MCP servers with a JSON file”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise admins can control which MCP servers users may run from the Cursor dashboard.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode supports MCP (local/remote servers) to add external tools, has an SDK/headless server for programmatic integrations, and GitHub Actions integration—these enable connecting third-party agent apps/tools into workflows. However, there's no evidence of a curated partner marketplace or vendor-vetted third-party 'agent apps' ecosystem beyond generic MCP/tool integration. missing for 10: a documented partner/marketplace ecosystem of pre-built third-party agent apps, case studies of integrating named partner agents, and independent verification of such integrations working smoothly.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Team knowledge

1. engineering-leadCreate a shared workspace from my docs and repos as a common source of truth for the team

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   Evidence shows integrations (GitHub, Slack, Linear), MCP/plugins, and rules configuration, but nothing describes a dedicated 'shared workspace' feature that unifies docs and repos into a common team source of truth — this is a fair ask for a team-oriented dev tool but unaddressed in the pack.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode offers session share links, repo-based 'agent skills', and enterprise SSO/config, but there is no evidence of a dedicated shared workspace feature that ingests both docs and repos into a common, persistent team source of truth — these are separate, ad-hoc mechanisms rather than a unified workspace.

   ⚑ flag

Tool integration

1. developerConnect the agent to workflow tools like Jira, Slack, and Google Drive to extend its context

   weight 3 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   Cursor documents MCP support that connects to external tools/data sources, an MCP marketplace with OAuth install, and explicit integration with Slack alongside GitHub/GitLab/Linear/Jira-style trackers, plus Slack-based agent collaboration—covering the story's workflow-tool extension use case. Missing for 10: explicit first-party Jira/Google Drive connector documentation and independent hands-on verification of these integrations working end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables Cursor to connect to external tools and data sources.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Click "Add to Cursor" on a marketplace entry to install it and authenticate with OAuth.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure custom MCP servers with a JSON file”
   • [claimed-docs] “Work with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket, JetBrains, Slack, Linear, and more”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode supports MCP for adding external tools (local and remote servers), which is the generic mechanism by which one could connect Jira/Slack/Google Drive-type integrations, but there is no direct first-party or community evidence of specific Jira, Slack, or Google Drive connectors or integrations. missing for 10: named first-party or community-verified MCP servers/integrations for Jira, Slack, or Google Drive specifically, and any evidence of workflow-tool context extension beyond generic MCP support.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the Model Context Protocol, or MCP.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerKick off agent tasks directly from GitHub, GitLab, Linear, or Slack

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor~partialclaimed7/10

   Cursor's docs explicitly list integrations with GitHub, GitLab, Slack, and Linear, and describe agents that run on triggers/schedules and collaborate in Slack or review PRs in GitHub, supporting the story's core claim. However, there's no detailed first-party documentation of the exact trigger mechanics per platform (e.g., a Linear ticket auto-spawning an agent) nor independent/hands-on confirmation that this works reliably. Missing for 10: platform-specific trigger documentation for each of GitHub/GitLab/Linear/Slack, and independent verification of the workflow in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Work with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket, JetBrains, Slack, Linear, and more”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed4/10

   OpenCode has documented GitHub integration where mentioning /opencode or /oc in a comment triggers tasks in GitHub Actions, including issue-to-PR workflows, but there is no evidence of native GitLab, Linear, or Slack integrations for kicking off agent tasks. missing for 10: GitLab integration, Linear integration, Slack integration, independent hands-on confirmation of the GitHub Actions flow working reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Cross device continuity

1. developerStart a task on one device and continue it later from another device or browser

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialclaimed5/10

   Cursor's Background Agents run remotely and can be monitored/interacted with via terminal, Slack, and GitHub PRs, implying a task could be checked or continued from different surfaces, but there is no explicit documentation of resuming a specific in-progress task from a different device or browser session. Missing for 10: explicit cross-device/browser session handoff documentation, hands-on confirmation of resuming a task started elsewhere, and details on state syncing across clients.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialcommunity6/10

   OpenCode supports remote/headless usage via `opencode serve` plus a TUI that can connect to a remote backend, share links for sessions, and a WebUI that can connect to multiple backends from anywhere (including mobile), which enables cross-device continuation of a session. However, this requires manual server setup rather than seamless native cloud sync, and community reports note bugs restoring session state and provider/model selection issues across sessions. missing for 10: first-party seamless cross-device sync without self-hosting a server, official mobile app, and clear documentation/evidence of resuming full task state (not just session sharing) across devices.

   • [claimed-docs] “This allows using the TUI with a remote OpenCode backend.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ide integration

1. developerView interactive diffs and share selected code as context from within my JetBrains IDE

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   The only evidence touching JetBrains is a single line listing JetBrains among integrations (cursor-docs-6), with no detail on interactive diffs or context-sharing features within a JetBrains IDE specifically. No documentation, screenshots, or community reports confirm this JetBrains-specific capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Work with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket, JetBrains, Slack, Linear, and more”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   Evidence only shows OpenCode integrating with VS Code, Cursor, or 'any IDE that supports a terminal' via keyboard shortcuts for split-terminal view and inserting file references; there is no mention of a JetBrains-specific plugin, interactive diff viewer, or JetBrains context-sharing UI. missing for 10: JetBrains plugin/extension documentation, interactive diff rendering inside JetBrains, JetBrains-specific 'share selected code' mechanism.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal. Just run `opencode` in the terminal to get started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Esc (Mac) or Ctrl+Esc (Windows/Linux) to open OpenCode in a split terminal view”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Option+K (Mac) or Alt+Ctrl+K (Linux/Windows) to insert file references.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use `Cmd+Esc` (Mac) or `Ctrl+Esc` (Windows/Linux) to open OpenCode in a split terminal view”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use `Cmd+Option+K` (Mac) or `Alt+Ctrl+K` (Linux/Windows) to insert file references.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerChat with the coding assistant directly inside my IDE for contextual help

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor✓fullcommunity7/10

   Cursor's docs describe an IDE-integrated assistant that traces repo structure, scopes changes via Plan Mode, reproduces issues, and hands off tasks while the developer reviews — all consistent with in-IDE contextual chat, and community commentary confirms it functions as a VS Code-based assistant with prompts/harness. missing for 10: no explicit citation naming a dedicated 'chat panel' UI or independent praise of chat quality/context-awareness specifically.

   • [claimed-docs] “Trace how a repo fits together and find the right places to start”
   • [claimed-docs] “Scope changes, use Plan Mode, and ship bigger work with confidence”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reproduce issues, narrow the root cause, and verify the fix”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”
   • [community] “"Cursor is an extension for VS Code, a harness and a bunch of prompts. They have their own model (Composer 2) which is based on Kimi K2.5, b…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode ships an IDE extension and integrates directly in VS Code/Cursor with in-editor shortcuts (split terminal view, file-reference insertion) for contextual chat, and community users confirm using it as their daily coding harness with LSP integration inside editors. Missing for 10: independent hands-on review specifically of the IDE-extension chat UX (most community feedback is TUI/CLI-focused) and no screenshots/deep detail on in-IDE chat UI beyond shortcuts.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal. Just run `opencode` in the terminal to get started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Any editor Available as a terminal interface, desktop app, and IDE extension”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Esc (Mac) or Ctrl+Esc (Windows/Linux) to open OpenCode in a split terminal view”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Cmd+Option+K (Mac) or Alt+Ctrl+K (Linux/Windows) to insert file references.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Session management

1. developerReview diffs visually and run multiple sessions side by side in a desktop app

   weight 2 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed6/10

   Cursor's docs explicitly describe inspecting diffs before merge and launching fleets of agents to work in parallel, both core to a desktop IDE experience with visual diff review and concurrent sessions. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation of the side-by-side session UI and a detailed walkthrough of the diff viewer beyond marketing copy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”
   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed5/10

   OpenCode has a documented desktop app with tabs (opencode-docs-19) and multi-session support to run multiple agents in parallel (opencode-docs-17/38), plus session share links; existence of the desktop app is also confirmed on GitHub (opencode-gh-1). However, there is no evidence describing a visual diff-review UI in the desktop app specifically — docs focus on TUI/terminal split views and file references rather than a diff viewer. Missing for 10: explicit documentation or screenshots of a visual diff/code-review interface in the desktop app, and independent/hands-on confirmation of side-by-side session usage in that app.

   • [claimed-docs] “Introducing tabs for desktop. Available on macOS, Windows, and Linux.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [github] “OpenCode is also available as a desktop application.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Any editor Available as a terminal interface, desktop app, and IDE extension”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadManage multiple agent-driven coding sessions from one unified workspace

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor✓fullclaimed7/10

   Cursor's docs explicitly describe launching 'fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days' and setting up always-on agents on schedules/triggers, all accessible from Cursor's interface spanning terminal, Slack, and GitHub — directly matching a unified multi-session agent workspace for a lead overseeing parallel work. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of the multi-agent dashboard UX, and no detail on cross-session visibility/coordination features specifically framed for engineering-lead oversight.

   • [claimed-docs] “Launch fleets of agents that work in parallel on ambitious tasks for hours or days.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accelerate development by handing off tasks to Cursor, while you focus on making decisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode explicitly supports multi-session workflows ('Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project'), tabs for desktop, share links for sessions, and a headless server that a WebUI can connect to across multiple backends, which community evidence corroborates ('WebUI... can connect to multiple OpenCode backends at once'). This directly matches an engineering-lead managing multiple agent sessions from one unified workspace. Missing for 10: no first-party documentation of team/organization-level oversight (e.g., viewing/managing sessions started by other engineers) and some reported bugs in session state restoration temper reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “**Multi-session** Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Introducing tabs for desktop. Available on macOS, Windows, and Linux.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Multi-session Start multiple agents in parallel on the same project”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Terminal workflow

1. developerRun a coding agent locally from my terminal

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor✓fullprobed7/10

   Cursor ships an official CLI (cursor.com/cli) with a documented install command (curl ... | bash) and docs explicitly state 'Cursor runs in your terminal', confirming a local terminal-based agent capability alongside its IDE. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of terminal agent usage and deeper CLI usage documentation beyond the install step.

   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://cursor.com/cli”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://cursor.com/install -fsS | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullprobed9/10

   OpenCode is explicitly a terminal-based coding agent, installable via curl/npm, run with `opencode` command in any terminal, with rich CLI docs and confirmed hands-on community usage as a daily local terminal harness. Missing for 10: no independent benchmark/security audit fully vetting the terminal experience beyond anecdotal reports (some report TUI compatibility bugs on specific setups).

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal. Just run `opencode` in the terminal to get started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl -fsSL https://opencode.ai/install | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with VS Code, Cursor, or any IDE that supports a terminal.”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://opencode.ai/docs/cli/”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerRun the agent non-interactively in scripts for workflow automation

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialprobed6/10

   Cursor ships an official CLI (cursor-probe-1, cursor-docs-14) and documents 'always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software' (cursor-docs-9), which implies non-interactive/automated agent execution suitable for scripts/CI. However, there is no concrete documentation of CLI flags, headless/print modes, exit codes, or scripting examples, nor independent hands-on confirmation of this workflow. Missing for 10: explicit CLI non-interactive flag/usage docs, examples of piping/scripting the agent, and independent verification that scheduled/triggered agents work as scripted automation.

   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://cursor.com/cli”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://cursor.com/install -fsS | bash”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up always-on agents that run on schedules or triggers to build, maintain, and fix your software.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullclaimed8/10

   The `opencode run` CLI command explicitly supports non-interactive one-shot execution (e.g. `opencode run "Explain how closures work"`), and `--auto` flag auto-approves permissions for unattended runs, plus `opencode serve` exposes a headless HTTP/OpenAPI server and JS/TS SDK for scripted/programmatic control, all fitting workflow automation. Missing for 10: independent hands-on evidence of non-interactive scripting reliability/CI use, and no dedicated exit-code/output-format docs for pipeline integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “opencode run "Explain how closures work in JavaScript"”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with --auto to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `opencode serve` command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Attach a terminal to an already running OpenCode backend server started via `serve` or `web` commands.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userDo everything through the API that I can do in the UI

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows no public API for Cursor; it mentions an official CLI and MCP (for connecting external tools INTO Cursor), but nothing about a programmatic interface exposing Cursor's own UI capabilities (agents, plan mode, review, etc.) for external control.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialprobed6/10

   OpenCode ships a headless server (`opencode serve`) exposing a documented OpenAPI spec (confirmed live at openapi.json) plus a JS/TS SDK explicitly for 'building integrations and controlling opencode programmatically,' and the TUI/WebUI can drive a remote backend — community confirms this works day-to-day including from mobile. However, no evidence explicitly enumerates full feature parity (e.g., agent skill management, permission config, enterprise SSO settings) as exposed via the API/SDK, and there's no independent audit confirming 1:1 UI/API parity. missing for 10: explicit parity documentation covering all UI-only features (skills, permission prompts, enterprise SSO), independent verification of full API coverage.

   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode JS/TS SDK provides a type-safe client for interacting with the server. Use it to build integrations and control opencode progra…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use it to build integrations and control opencode programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The opencode serve command runs a headless HTTP server that exposes an OpenAPI endpoint that an opencode client can use.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://opencode.ai/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [claimed-docs] “This allows using the TUI with a remote OpenCode backend.”
   • [community] “You can start a service via 'opencode serve', it can be accessed from anywhere and has great experience on mobile except a few bugs... The W…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userExport all of my data in open formats and leave

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data export, portability, or open-format data extraction from Cursor; being built on VS Code (a fork) doesn't itself guarantee user data/settings export tooling is documented anywhere here.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence describes an explicit data-export feature or open-format portability guarantee for OpenCode; while it is open-source and stores config/sessions locally, there's no documented 'export all my data and leave' capability, and community threads even note telemetry sent to OpenCode's own servers with no way to disable it (opencode-comm-2), undercutting a clean data-portability story.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”
   • [claimed-docs] “**Share links** Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”
   • [claimed-docs] “Share links Share a link to any session for reference or to debug”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRead the product's source under an open license

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   Cursor is known to be closed-source (a proprietary VS Code fork), and the evidence pack contains no mention of any open-source license or public repository for Cursor's source code; all references are to product docs, features, or community complaints unrelated to licensing.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode's docs explicitly describe it as "open source" and a public GitHub repo exists (opencode-gh-1), and community members confirm they read and learned from the actual source code (opencode-comm-6), corroborating that the source is genuinely accessible. missing for 10: explicit citation of the license name/type (e.g., MIT/Apache) in the evidence pack, and a first-party statement pointing to the license file itself.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode is an open source AI coding agent. It's available as a terminal-based interface, desktop app, or IDE extension.”
   • [github] “OpenCode is also available as a desktop application.”
   • [community] “OpenCode source code is even more awesome. I have learned so much from the way they have organized tools, agents, settings and prompts. mode…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Authentication

1. developerAuthenticate with an API key instead of an account login

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack describes API key authentication as an alternative to account login for Cursor; docs reference OAuth-based MCP authentication and account-based login flows only.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullclaimed8/10

   OpenCode explicitly supports configuring API keys for any LLM provider as an alternative to logging in via account-based options like GitHub Copilot or ChatGPT Plus/Pro, giving developers a direct API-key auth path rather than requiring account login. Missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation of the API key setup flow itself and details on key storage/security beyond docs claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “With OpenCode you can use any LLM provider by configuring their API keys.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode Zen is a list of tested and verified models provided by the OpenCode team.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadAuthenticate through an enterprise identity or cloud platform for compliance and scalability

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows Cursor has enterprise admin controls for MCP servers but contains no evidence of SSO/SAML integration, enterprise identity provider authentication (e.g., Okta, Azure AD, Google Workspace), or cloud platform login for compliance purposes. This is a fair and applicable axis for a widely-adopted dev tool sold to enterprises, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.

   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise admins can control which MCP servers users may run from the Cursor dashboard.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed6/10

   OpenCode has a documented enterprise config that integrates with SSO and enforces a centralized internal AI gateway, directly addressing enterprise identity/compliance needs, and supports login via GitHub Copilot/OpenAI accounts. However, there's no independent corroboration of this enterprise SSO feature in practice, no detail on supported identity providers (SAML/OIDC specifics), and community discussion focuses on telemetry/security concerns rather than confirming enterprise auth workflows. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation of SSO integration, details on supported IdPs, and evidence of enterprise customers actually using this for compliance/scalability.

   • [claimed-docs] “This centralized config can integrate with your SSO provider and ensures all users access only your internal AI gateway.”
   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. developerSign in with my existing product subscription plan to use the coding agent

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack describes Cursor's agent features, MCP integrations, and installation steps, but contains no documentation or confirmation that users authenticate with an existing subscription plan to access the coding agent (only tangential community chatter about login policy hallucinations). Missing for 10: explicit account/subscription sign-in flow docs, plan-tier access confirmation, and any first-party statement linking subscription plan to agent usage.

   • [community] “Cursor's AI support agent hallucinated a single-device login policy, telling a user this was intentional. A Cursor developer later clarified…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity8/10

   OpenCode docs explicitly support signing in with existing subscriptions—GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT Plus/Pro—rather than requiring separate API keys, and community comments confirm using subscriptions (e.g., Codex $200/mo) inside OpenCode. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of the Copilot/ChatGPT login flow itself and broader coverage of other subscription providers beyond these two.

   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [claimed-docs] “GitHub Copilot Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “ChatGPT Plus/Pro Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [community] “OpenCode is awesome. Claude Code is nothing special at all. Last month I switched to just using OpenCode with a Codex $200/mo subscription, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. developerSign in with a personal account to get free-tier access without managing API keys

   weight 1 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no documentation or first-party description of a sign-in flow that grants free-tier access without requiring API keys; only tangential community mentions of account workarounds for usage limits exist. Missing for 10: any docs on account creation/sign-in, free-tier terms, or explicit no-API-key requirement.

   • [community] “Cursor is caught in a cat-and-mouse game against workarounds where users create new accounts to get unlimited use; a repo enabling this (cur…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity7/10

   OpenCode's docs explicitly offer 'Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account' and 'Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account,' letting a developer authenticate with an existing personal subscription instead of managing provider API keys, and OpenCode Zen is noted to include a free coding model. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on user reports specifically confirming this login flow (community comments focus on API keys/local models, not the Copilot/ChatGPT login path), and clarity on any usage limits tied to the free tier.

   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [claimed-docs] “GitHub Copilot Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “ChatGPT Plus/Pro Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [community] “OpenCode source code is even more awesome. I have learned so much from the way they have organized tools, agents, settings and prompts. mode…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Model choice

1. developerLet the tool automatically pick the best model for each task

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence shows Cursor lets developers manually choose among multiple models (OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, etc.) but nothing indicates an automatic 'best model for the task' selection feature. missing for 10: any documentation or claim of an auto-select/router feature that picks models per task, evidence of cost/performance-based automatic routing.

   • [claimed-docs] “Choose between every cutting-edge model from OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, SpaceXAI, and Cursor.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   Evidence shows OpenCode supports many providers/models and lets users manually assign a model per agent or switch via Tab, but nothing indicates the tool automatically selects the optimal model for a given task — community feedback even confirms model/provider choice is manual and sometimes annoying to manage across sessions.

   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use the Tab key to switch between primary agents during a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “75+ LLM providers through Models.dev, including local models”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerChoose which underlying AI model powers my session from multiple providers

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   cursor-docs-7 confirms Cursor lets developers choose between models from multiple providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, and Cursor's own), directly matching the story. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of per-session model switching UI/behavior and pricing implications tied to model choice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Choose between every cutting-edge model from OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, SpaceXAI, and Cursor.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullcommunity9/10

   OpenCode explicitly supports configuring any LLM provider via API keys, lists 75+ providers through Models.dev including local models, offers a curated OpenCode Zen model list, and supports logging in with GitHub Copilot or ChatGPT Plus/Pro accounts. Community evidence corroborates real-world use with multiple providers (Claude, Gemini, local llama.cpp, Qwen) and per-agent model selection. Missing for 10: some community reports note model/provider switching across sessions can be buggy or annoying, a minor UX caveat.

   • [claimed-docs] “With OpenCode you can use any LLM provider by configuring their API keys.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode Zen is a list of tested and verified models provided by the OpenCode team.”
   • [claimed-docs] “75+ LLM providers through Models.dev, including local models”
   • [claimed-docs] “Any model 75+ LLM providers through Models.dev, including local models”
   • [claimed-docs] “**GitHub Copilot** Log in with GitHub to use your Copilot account”
   • [claimed-docs] “**ChatGPT Plus/Pro** Log in with OpenAI to use your ChatGPT Plus or Pro account”
   • [community] “I really like how their subagents work, as a bonus I get to choose which model is in which agent.”
   • [community] “i've been using this as my primary harness for llama.cpp models, Claude, and Gemini for a few months now. the LSP integration is great.”
   • [community] “This replaced Aider for me a couple months back. I use it with Qwen 3.5 running locally when my daily limits run out on my other subscriptio…”
   • [community] “There are random bugs with loading/restoring state of the session; Model/Provider selection switch across sessions/projects is often annoyin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userChoose where my data is stored (region/residency)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, region selection, or storage location controls for Cursor; the docs snippets cover agents, MCP, and integrations but nothing about choosing data storage region. Missing for 10: any mention of regional data residency options, enterprise data location controls, or compliance documentation addressing storage jurisdiction.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack of a region/residency selection feature for data storage; OpenCode's docs focus on provider choice, self-hosting, and enterprise SSO, none of which address data residency. In fact, community reports indicate telemetry is always sent to OpenCode's own servers with no way to disable it, further suggesting the user lacks control over where certain data goes.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userPrevent my data from being used to train AI models

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no documentation of a privacy mode, opt-out of training, or data-retention controls for Cursor; all cited docs cover unrelated features (agents, MCP, integrations) and community threads are unrelated to training-data privacy.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no documentation of any setting, policy, or opt-out mechanism for preventing user data/code from being used to train AI models (OpenCode's docs focus on providers, agents, permissions, IDE integration, etc., none addressing training-data usage). Community evidence actually suggests the opposite direction of concern: telemetry is sent to OpenCode's own servers even with locally-hosted models with no way to disable it, which further undermines confidence that user data is protected from being retained/used.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no documentation of data retention settings, deletion controls, privacy dashboard, or data handling policies for Cursor; only unrelated docs on features (MCP, agents, integrations) and community complaints about bugs/pricing are present. Missing for 10: any first-party privacy policy docs, retention period settings, data deletion request mechanism, or enterprise data controls.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   No documentation describes any data retention or deletion controls, and community evidence indicates the opposite: OpenCode sends telemetry to its own servers even with local models, with no environment variables or flags to disable it, suggesting no user-facing data controls exist.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOpt out of telemetry and usage tracking

   weight 2 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no mention of telemetry settings, privacy controls, or usage-tracking opt-out mechanisms; docs only cover unrelated features like MCP, agents, and integrations. Missing for 10: any privacy policy or settings documentation, telemetry opt-out toggle, or usage data collection disclosure.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode!disputedcontradicted2/10

   OpenCode's docs make no mention of a telemetry opt-out setting, and a community report explicitly states OpenCode sends telemetry to its own servers even with locally hosted models, with no environment variables, flags, or config options to disable it. This is a first-party-vs-hands-on-evidence conflict: no documented opt-out mechanism exists, and independent evidence claims none is available. missing for 10: any official docs describing a telemetry toggle/opt-out, first-party acknowledgment of telemetry collection, and any evidence the reported issue was fixed.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Data governance

1. engineering-leadOpt out of having my code and prompts used for AI model training

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no mention of privacy settings, opt-out of training, or data usage policies for Cursor; all docs entries relate to unrelated features (agents, MCP, integrations) and community items focus on bugs/pricing/model sourcing, not training data controls.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   No documentation exists describing a training-data opt-out or data-use policy for prompts/code; in fact community evidence indicates OpenCode sends telemetry to its own servers with no way to disable it, even when using local models, suggesting the opposite of user control over data usage.

   • [community] “OpenCode is sending telemetry to their own servers, even when you're using your own locally hosted models. There are no environment variable…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Pr review

1. developerHave the agent stage changes, write commit messages, create branches, and open pull requests

   weight 3 · round to OpenCode
   Cursor~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs show GitHub/GitLab integration and agents that build/test/demo work end-to-end for review (cursor-docs-6, cursor-docs-10, cursor-docs-12), implying some git-workflow automation, but there's no explicit documentation of the agent staging changes, writing commit messages, creating branches, or opening pull requests. missing for 10: explicit commit-message generation, branch creation, PR-opening workflow documentation, and any hands-on confirmation these steps work end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “Work with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket, JetBrains, Slack, Linear, and more”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs explicitly describe GitHub integration where OpenCode 'will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes' and can execute tasks via mentions in GitHub Actions, covering branch creation and PR opening; permission config also governs whether actions like git operations auto-run or prompt. However, there's no explicit mention of staging changes or generating commit messages as a distinct capability, and no independent/community evidence corroborates the PR-creation workflow in practice. missing for 10: explicit documentation of commit message generation/staging step, independent hands-on verification of the branch+PR workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerGet automatic code review with contextual feedback on every pull request

   weight 3 · round to Cursor
   Cursor✓fullclaimed7/10

   Cursor's docs explicitly claim it 'reviews PRs in GitHub' and can 'inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge,' directly matching automated PR review with contextual feedback, backed by GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket integration claims. missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of review quality, details on triggering on every PR automatically, and no community corroboration of this specific feature.

   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”
   • [claimed-docs] “Work with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket, JetBrains, Slack, Linear, and more”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed4/10

   OpenCode has a GitHub Actions integration (mention /opencode or /oc in a comment) and a read-only 'plan' agent that can review/suggest changes without modifying code, which can be used for PR feedback, but this requires an explicit manual mention rather than automatically triggering contextual review on every PR. Missing for 10: documented automatic/triggerless review on every new PR, evidence of inline contextual comments on diffs, and independent confirmation of this review workflow in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode integrates with your GitHub workflow. Mention /opencode or /oc in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub …”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This will walk you through installing the GitHub app, creating the workflow, and setting up secrets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. developerInspect diffs and run checks to catch problems before merging

   weight 3 · round to Cursor
   Cursor~partialclaimed5/10

   cursor-docs-4 explicitly claims the capability ('Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge') and cursor-docs-10/12 support a broader PR review workflow, but there is no independent or hands-on corroboration of diff inspection or check-running in practice, and community evidence focuses on unrelated bugs/pricing rather than this feature. missing for 10: independent verification of diff review UI, details on what 'checks' run (tests/linters/CI), and hands-on confirmation of pre-merge workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Inspect diffs, run checks, and catch problems before you merge”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cursor runs in your terminal, collaborates in Slack, and reviews PRs in GitHub.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode~partialclaimed4/10

   OpenCode offers a read-only 'plan' agent for reviewing suggested changes without applying them and a permission system that can prompt before actions run, plus GitHub PR/Actions integration for submitting changes — these provide some review-safety scaffolding. However there is no documented diff-viewing UI or built-in test/lint/check-running capability before merge. Missing for 10: explicit diff inspection tooling, integrated test/lint/CI check execution, and independent evidence that these safety mechanisms actually prevent bad merges.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the plan agent to analyze code and review suggestions without making any code changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This agent is useful when you want the LLM to analyze code, suggest changes, or create plans without making any actual modifications to your…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A fast, read-only agent for exploring codebases. Cannot modify files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask OpenCode to fix an issue or implement a feature. And it will work in a new branch and submits a PR with all the changes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mention `/opencode` or `/oc` in your comment, and OpenCode will execute tasks within your GitHub Actions runner.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Safe execution

1. engineering-leadControl which external tools and integrations the agent is allowed to access

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs show enterprise admins can restrict which MCP servers users may run from the Cursor dashboard, and users can toggle individual servers on/off, giving engineering leads direct control over external tool/integration access. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of the admin dashboard controls and finer-grained per-tool permission examples beyond MCP servers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise admins can control which MCP servers users may run from the Cursor dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Toggle servers on/off without removing them”
   • [claimed-docs] “Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables Cursor to connect to external tools and data sources.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure custom MCP servers with a JSON file”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode✓fullclaimed8/10

   OpenCode's permission system lets leads set actions to auto-run, prompt, or block per tool/input, and MCP servers (external tools) are explicitly added/configured (docs-4/23/41). Enterprise config also lets orgs force use of an internal AI gateway and SSO, further restricting what integrations agents can reach (docs-33/50). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that permission rules reliably block disallowed MCP tool calls in practice, and finer detail on allow/deny lists for specific external tool names beyond the general permission object.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the permission config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with --auto to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “For most permissions, you can use an object to apply different actions based on the tool input.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use external_directory to allow tool calls that touch paths outside the working directory where OpenCode was started.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP. OpenCode supports both local and remote servers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the Model Context Protocol, or MCP.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add external tools to OpenCode using the _Model Context Protocol_, or MCP.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This centralized config can integrate with your SSO provider and ensures all users access only your internal AI gateway.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Through the central config, OpenCode can integrate with your organization’s SSO provider for authentication.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadHave the agent operate inside a sandbox when interacting with code, tools, and network resources

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no mention of sandboxing, isolated execution environments, or network/tool restriction controls for the agent; docs describe agents using 'their own computers' but give no detail on containment/sandboxing mechanisms. Missing for 10: any documentation of a sandbox/isolation feature, network egress controls, or filesystem restriction for agent actions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Agents use their own computers to build, test, and demo features end to end for you to review.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode's documentation only describes a permission system (auto-approve/prompt/block) and an 'external_directory' toggle for path access — not an isolated sandbox for code execution, tool calls, or network access. Community evidence (opencode-comm-18) even flags that the local server mode allows any local process or webpage to execute code without authentication, the opposite of sandboxed isolation, and there is no first-party claim of container/VM-based sandboxing to dispute.

   • [claimed-docs] “OpenCode uses the `permission` config to decide whether a given action should run automatically, prompt you, or be blocked.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start OpenCode with `--auto` to automatically approve permission requests that are not explicitly denied.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use external_directory to allow tool calls that touch paths outside the working directory where OpenCode was started.”
   • [community] “When server is enabled, any web page served from localhost/127.0.0.1 can execute code; any local process can execute code without authentica…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Security checks

1. engineering-leadSee license and public-code matching references for AI-suggested code

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack mentions license detection, public code matching, provenance references, or IP attribution for AI-suggested code; docs focus on repo navigation, diffs, agents, and integrations, none of which addresses license/code-match transparency.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   No evidence of any license or public-code matching/attribution feature for AI-suggested code in OpenCode's docs or community reports; the product focuses on agent workflows, permissions, and MCP integration but nothing about code provenance or license scanning.

   ⚑ flag

2. developerGet contextual explanations and automatic fixes for security vulnerabilities

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Cursor—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows general code review/diff-inspection features (cursor-docs-4) and broad agent capabilities, but nothing specifically documents contextual security vulnerability explanations or automated security fixes. Missing for 10: any mention of vulnerability detection, security scanning integration, or CVE/security-specific fix suggestions.

   ⚑ flag

   OpenCode—none0/10

   OpenCode is a general coding agent with plan/explore/build agents and permission controls, but no evidence describes any security-vulnerability scanning, contextual vulnerability explanations, or automatic security fix generation as a feature. Community evidence even highlights unresolved security reports and vulnerabilities in OpenCode itself, not a capability to detect/fix vulnerabilities in user code.

   ⚑ flag