Specs beat prompts

fter trying Cursor, Claude Code, and Google Antigravity for a while, I keep coming back to the same thing.

The tool matters less than the workflow.

What works better for me

• start with a spec before writing code
• break the work into small tickets
• keep the context short and clear
• review the output before merging

What usually goes wrong

• vague prompts
• too much context at once
• no clear acceptance criteria
• trusting the first output too much

Most tools are good at generating code, but not that great at keeping things structured.

I tried a mix of tools like

• Cursor https://cursor.sh
• Claude Code https://claude.ai/code

and then something like Traycer which felt more focused on the planning + structure side

and then tools like

• Google Antigravity https://antigravity.google
• Windsurf https://windsurf.ai
• Gemini CLI https://ai.google.dev
• CodeRabbit https://coderabbit.ai

What felt different is the flow becomes more like

spec → tickets → execution → review

instead of just prompt → code → fix → repeat

For me, that is the real difference.

Not better prompts, just better structure.

Curious how others are doing this

are you still prompting directly or using some kind of spec first workflow?