If you're building coding agents or automated developer workflows, you'll quickly discover the challenge of finding a robust, non-interactive CLI tool for code generation and modification. While human-in-the-loop coding (where a developer guides the AI) is still the gold standard for complex software, there's a growing need for tools that can operate fully autonomously—especially for simple, repetitive tasks or as part of larger agentic systems.
My Use Case: AI Agent for Playable Ads
I'm working on building an AI agent for creating playable ads—essentially mini games that can be used as interactive advertisements. This involves integrating various assets, ensuring the output works in both portrait and landscape modes, and adhering to the ad format requirements of different ad networks. My workflow starts from an existing marketing video. I use Gemini to analyze the video, break down the requirements, and generate a set of tasks. Then, for each task, I run Claude Code in a loop to generate or modify code as needed. (The actual workflow is more complex, but this gives a broad overview.)
This process requires a coding assistant that can operate in a non-interactive, automated fashion, handling multiple tasks efficiently and cost-effectively.
The Problem: Claude Code CLI Limitations
Anthropic's Claude Code is widely regarded as one of the best AI coding assistants, especially for its reasoning and code quality. However, when it comes to running in non-interactive, fully automated CLI mode, it's extremely slow. The interactive mode (where you authenticate in the browser and work in a conversational loop) is smooth, but it doesn't support asynchronous or background operation—making it a bottleneck for agentic workflows. If you want to use Claude Code as a tool inside your workflow to automatically change files, you'll find the non-interactive mode frustratingly slow. Additionally, Claude Code can be expensive: running a single mini project can cost up to $10, which adds up quickly for iterative or large-scale workflows.
Surveying the Alternatives
In my search for better CLI-based coding assistants, I explored several options. Here's a summary of what I found, with references for deeper dives:
1. Aider
Aider is a command-line code assistant that's been getting a lot of attention for its speed and usability. It's particularly effective for batch code modifications, like migrating hundreds of test files from one format to another. The main caveat is that you need to specify exactly which files to edit, as Aider doesn't do as much reasoning as Claude Code. This makes it faster, but less "magical" for complex, open-ended tasks. For large-scale, repetitive changes, it's a game-changer. For more details and real-world usage, see this blog post and the Aider GitHub issues.
2. Cline and Roo-Code
Cline is an editor-only fork, and Roo-Code is a fork of Cline. Neither offers a CLI, so they're not suitable for agentic, non-interactive workflows.
3. Goose CLI
Goose is another promising CLI tool for code generation and modification. It's designed for automation and can be integrated into agentic workflows. The documentation is straightforward, and it could be worth trying if you want a CLI-first experience. I plan to try Goose CLI myself and will report back on its effectiveness.
4. Codex
Codex (from OpenAI) was never a leader in this space, and in fact, Claude Code was released before Codex. Community feedback consistently notes that Codex hallucinates a lot, making it unreliable for agentic workflows (Hacker News discussion).
5. Devseeker & aicode
Both are open-source projects with very few stars and limited community traction. Unless you're interested in experimenting, they're probably not worth your time right now.
6. AgentAPI by Coder
AgentAPI by Coder is an interesting project that could be useful for building custom agentic workflows, though it's not a drop-in CLI replacement.
7. Cursor (Upcoming)
Cursor is working on a background agent that promises to bring agentic capabilities to their editor, but it's not released for all yet (Rolling out).
8. Claude Code vs. Aider: Community Opinions
For a direct comparison of Claude Code and Aider, check out this Substack post and Daniel Corin's TIL. The consensus is that Claude Code is best for high-quality, reasoning-heavy tasks, but Aider is much faster for targeted, file-based edits.
Conclusion
If you're looking to build fully agentic coding workflows—like my playable ads agent—the landscape is still evolving. Claude Code remains the best for complex, reasoning-intensive tasks, but its non interactive CLI mode is too slow and can be expensive for practical automation. Aider and Goose are the most promising CLI tools for fast, file-based code changes, with Aider standing out for its speed and batch processing capabilities. Goose CLI could be worth trying, and I plan to experiment with it soon. Keep an eye on Cursor's upcoming background agent for future developments.
Top comments (0)