最新

I’ve been using Cursor and Claude Code daily for real work, not just experiments.<p>One thing that surprised me is how quickly code quality converges between tools once you plan clearly. At this point, I don’t feel a meaningful difference in output quality itself.<p>What does feel different is the workflow mode each tool supports.<p>When I want many things moving at once, spawning parallel agents, delegating background tasks, or running async work, Claude Code feels more natural to me. The CLI and agent-first model fits that style well.<p>When I need to slow down, review plans, read diffs, understand context, and make careful changes, Cursor feels more friendly. It’s easier for focused thinking and sense-making.<p>So for me, it’s parallel vs focus mode.<p>We’re also starting to run Claude Code in CI&#x2F;CD for well-scoped tasks like tests, refactors, and reproducible bug fixes. That background delegation is where CLI-first tools start to matter.<p>Curious how others are splitting work between these tools, or if you see it differently.

I built PushEnv after repeatedly running into the same problems with .env files: secrets getting shared in Slack, committed to Git, going out of sync across machines, and breaking deployments with no clear audit trail or rollback.<p>PushEnv is a local-first, encrypted workflow for managing environment variables. Secrets are encrypted on the developer’s machine before being stored, and only ciphertext is ever uploaded. There’s no dashboard, no accounts, and no SaaS dependency — just a Git-style push&#x2F;pull&#x2F;diff&#x2F;history flow for .env files.<p>It also supports type-safe env validation with Zod, zero-file secret injection for CI, and versioned rollbacks.<p>This is an early version, and I’d really appreciate feedback from people who’ve dealt with secrets management at scale — especially around security assumptions, workflow design, and real-world edge cases.