Is Antigravity CLI still the only TUI allowed for Gemini? Coming from Claude Code, agy is quite a few steps back. Particularly I miss /ide that can connect to vscode and then can display a pre-write diff which then can be acknowledged or declined in CC.
was added in CC version 2.1.202 on July 8, 2026. Setting it to value 1 will suppresses session-URL attribution (returns null instead of the session attribution info). I will set it, as suggested in this July 18 comment https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/66504#issue...
And in ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md this 'git rule' which works fine:
Never add a Co-Authored-By line or any other reference to Claude in commit messages.
Trying until you find something that doesn’t fail is the model used throughout evolution & engineering, think of bridges collapsed, airplanes falling from the sky or exploded steam locomotives.
In engineering you learn from these mistakes and try never making them again. Do we want to go through this evolution every time we solve a software issue? Just because we can with an unlimited number of cheap tokens? I think not, I’d rather use the knowledge build up that also knows about the edge cases forgotten to test. Or better, use multiple models that evaluate each other, as Entropic describes it in their recent report https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49316271
> We expect that agents coordinating in the wild will act in higher variance ways than we see here, because they’ll have different backgrounds and therefore different contexts. They also, presumably, won’t all be Claudes.
I have both GLM & Gemini in a subscription and see no reason for choosing GLM 5.3 Flash. Working with de speed of Gemini 3.7 Flash is such a delight that I accept the hassle of working with Antigravity CLI, coming from Claude Code which I use for GLM.
I find the Time per Task[0] metric more helpful, because models vary enormously in the tokens required to complete a task. On Time per Task, Gemini 3.7 Flash is Matched with GPT-5.6-Sol, as well as on price per task.
GLM-5.3-Flash takes 7x (relative to Gemini and Sol) per task. So, it's cheaper, if you don't value your time! Don't value real-time workflows, don't value iteration speed, etc. So, doesn't seem very suitable for interactive or agentic work to me.
But having an ultra cheap model for async stuff is always very nice. (Still, the last few weeks feel less about tech and more like a contest between who can afford to give the biggest discounts!)
--
I also like DeepSwe[2], although they measure Output Tokens and Agent Steps, which are misleading when one model has a much faster output speed. (e.g. on their metrics Gemini looks slower, because they don't account for that.)
> We expect that agents coordinating in the wild will act in higher variance ways than we see here, because they’ll have different backgrounds and therefore different contexts. They also, presumably, won’t all be Claudes.
I do use a second Claude (both Opus) to review the first one's output - it almost always finds worthwhile (often critical) observations. They have different 'perspectives', one wants the job done, one wants to find problems, is how I had it explained.
Claude chat itself called it 'Claude-on-Claude action', which I found cute.
reply