Workflow and Stack Criteria
Use this page after Choose a Workflow and Stack.
That page helps you pick a likely workflow shape. This page helps you pressure-test the shortlist.
What This Page Is For
Section titled “What This Page Is For”By the time you are here, you should already have a likely workflow shape:
- integrated AI IDE
- AI extension in your current editor
- terminal agent workflow
If you are still deciding at that level, go back to Choose a Workflow and Stack.
Compare Workflow Shapes by Friction and Control
Section titled “Compare Workflow Shapes by Friction and Control”| Workflow shape | Strongest at | Main friction | Best when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Integrated AI IDE | one unified environment for navigation, editing, and chat | more opinionated environment and more product churn | you want the easiest integrated path |
| AI extension | preserving your current editor habits | can feel more fragmented than a full AI-native IDE | you already like your editor and want gradual adoption |
| Terminal agent workflow | explicit plans, diffs, scripts, and verification loops | steeper learning curve for editor-first users | you already work in the terminal and want direct control |
Apply Operating Filters
Section titled “Apply Operating Filters”These are filters, not separate workflow shapes:
- local or private requirement - can code leave your environment or not?
- enterprise requirement - do you need identity, policy, audit logs, or admin controls?
- multimodal requirement - do you need screenshots, mockups, or diagram input?
- model-switching requirement - do you need easy provider or model changes?
A good decision usually comes from one workflow shape plus one or two filters.
Compare Access Models
Section titled “Compare Access Models”| Access model | What it means | Best fit | Main caveat |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosted account | tool manages model access for you | easiest setup | less control over provider boundaries and retention details |
| BYOK | you supply provider credentials | flexible provider choice and cost control | more setup and key management |
| Local | model runs on your infrastructure | privacy, offline, controlled environments | hardware and capability limits |
| Self-hosted enterprise | organization controls deployment boundary | regulated environments | operational overhead |
Compare the Criteria That Actually Matter
Section titled “Compare the Criteria That Actually Matter”Before you commit, compare your shortlist on:
- verification ergonomics - is it easy to review diffs, run tests, and keep the loop honest?
- privacy boundary - where can code go, and under whose terms?
- setup burden - how much configuration is required before the workflow is productive?
- switching cost - how reversible is the decision if the tool stops fitting?
- team rollout friction - how well does it support policy, identity, and onboarding?
If a tool is impressive but makes verification awkward, it is the wrong fit for serious work.
Good Decisions Usually Look Like This
Section titled “Good Decisions Usually Look Like This”- pick the lightest workflow that fits your existing habits
- prefer reversibility over premature optimization
- choose deployment boundary before chasing feature lists
- keep the shortlist small
- treat vendor pages as lookup material, not the main curriculum
What This Page Intentionally Does Not Do
Section titled “What This Page Intentionally Does Not Do”- rank specific products
- preserve live feature matrices
- compare pricing snapshots
- freeze product claims into the core path
For product-specific details, use the vendor pages in the Reference Appendix.
Where Models and Providers Fit
Section titled “Where Models and Providers Fit”Once you know your workflow shape, use these pages to narrow the stack:
Those pages should support the workflow decision, not replace it.