4 ms·

I'm currently using Goose[1]. My brother in law uses Claude Code and he likes it. It makes me wonder if I'm missing anything. Can anyone tell me if there's any

I'm currently using Goose[1]. My brother in law uses Claude Code and he likes it. It makes me wonder if I'm missing anything. Can anyone tell me if there's any reason I should switch to Claude Code, or comparisons between the two? 1: https://block.github.io/goose/ https://block.github.io/goose/

CuriouslyC 1y ago
The only real reason to use Claude Code is the inference plan. The agent itself isn't anything special.
- cesarvarela 1y ago
  This, but also the usability of the cli, is a step above the others to me. i.e., switching between modes on the fly and having the plan mode easily accessible via shift+tab.
- faxmeyourcode 1y ago
  Curious that you say that. I feel like the reason I love to use claude code is mostly because of the orchestration around the model itself. Maybe I've been trained by claude to write for it in a certain way. But when I try other clis like codex, gemini, and more recently opencode, they don't seem as well built and polished or even as capable, despite me liking the gemini and gpt-5 models themselves and using their apis more than anthropic's for work.
  - CuriouslyC 1y ago
    Claude is highly autonomous. You can yeet short underspecified prompts at it, and it's tuned to produce good vibe code output, though very samey since they've squashed the distribution a bit in order to effectively steer the model. GPT5 is less autonomous and also needs more steering, but the upside of this is that when Codex can't do something, it'll come back to you for feedback, whereas when Claude cant' do something it implements a toy/mock version then typically lies about completing the task successfully in the final summary output.
rirze 1y ago
Never used goose, but looked at it way back when-- Claude Code feels more native IMO. Especially if you're already using Anthropic API/Plans anyways, I'd say give it a try.
all2 1y ago
I tried goose and it seems like there's a lot of nice defaults that Claude Code provides that Goose does not. How did you do your initial configuration?
- kristopolous 1y ago
  What I've been trying to use it for is to solve a number of long-standing bugs that I've frankly given up on in various Linux tools. I think I lack the social skills to community drive a fix, probably through some undiagnosed disorder or something so I've been trying to soldier alone on some issues I've had for years. The issues are things like focus jacking in some window manager I'm using on xorg where the keyboard and the mouse get separate focuses Goose has been somewhat promising, but still not great. I mean overall, I don't think any of these coding agents have given me useful insight into my long vexing problems I think there has to be some type of perception gap or knowledge asymmetry to be really useful - for instance, with foreign languages. I've studied a few but just in the "taking classes at the local JC" way. These LLMs are absolutely fantastic aids there because I know enough to frame the question but not enough to get the answer. There's some model for dealing with this I don't have yet. Essentially I can ask the right question about a variety of things but arguably I'm not doing it right with the software. I've been writing software for decades, is it really that I'm not competent enough to ask the right question? That's certainly the simplest model but it doesn't check out. Maybe in some fields I've surpassed a point where llms are useful? It all circles back to an existential fear of delusional competency.
  - all2 1y ago
    > Maybe in some fields I've surpassed a point where llms are useful? I've hit this point while designing developer UX for a library I'm working on. LLMs can nail boilerplate, but when it comes to dev UX they seem to not be very good. Maybe that's because I have a specific vision and some pretty tight requirements? Dunno. I'm in the same spot as you for some stuff. For throwaway code they're pretty great.
  - fourthark 1y ago
    Yeah if it’s obscure stuff you might have to guide it, show it just the relevant code / context. Outline the design for it. They seem autonomous but often aren’t.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
383toast 1y ago
https://github.com/block/goose/discussions/3133#discussioncomment-13611837 https://github.com/block/goose/discussions/3133#discussionco...
jatins 1y ago
Used both. I think Claude Code is better because of better System prompt. It'll divide work into smaller tasks and go through it by default. You can get same behavior with Goose but will likely need to do a lot of prompting yourself

CuriouslyC 1y ago

The only real reason to use Claude Code is the inference plan. The agent itself isn't anything special.

cesarvarela 1y ago
This, but also the usability of the cli, is a step above the others to me. i.e., switching between modes on the fly and having the plan mode easily accessible via shift+tab.
faxmeyourcode 1y ago
Curious that you say that. I feel like the reason I love to use claude code is mostly because of the orchestration around the model itself. Maybe I've been trained by claude to write for it in a certain way. But when I try other clis like codex, gemini, and more recently opencode, they don't seem as well built and polished or even as capable, despite me liking the gemini and gpt-5 models themselves and using their apis more than anthropic's for work.
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  Claude is highly autonomous. You can yeet short underspecified prompts at it, and it's tuned to produce good vibe code output, though very samey since they've squashed the distribution a bit in order to effectively steer the model. GPT5 is less autonomous and also needs more steering, but the upside of this is that when Codex can't do something, it'll come back to you for feedback, whereas when Claude cant' do something it implements a toy/mock version then typically lies about completing the task successfully in the final summary output.

rirze 1y ago

Never used goose, but looked at it way back when-- Claude Code feels more native IMO. Especially if you're already using Anthropic API/Plans anyways, I'd say give it a try.

all2 1y ago

I tried goose and it seems like there's a lot of nice defaults that Claude Code provides that Goose does not. How did you do your initial configuration?

kristopolous 1y ago
What I've been trying to use it for is to solve a number of long-standing bugs that I've frankly given up on in various Linux tools. I think I lack the social skills to community drive a fix, probably through some undiagnosed disorder or something so I've been trying to soldier alone on some issues I've had for years. The issues are things like focus jacking in some window manager I'm using on xorg where the keyboard and the mouse get separate focuses Goose has been somewhat promising, but still not great. I mean overall, I don't think any of these coding agents have given me useful insight into my long vexing problems I think there has to be some type of perception gap or knowledge asymmetry to be really useful - for instance, with foreign languages. I've studied a few but just in the "taking classes at the local JC" way. These LLMs are absolutely fantastic aids there because I know enough to frame the question but not enough to get the answer. There's some model for dealing with this I don't have yet. Essentially I can ask the right question about a variety of things but arguably I'm not doing it right with the software. I've been writing software for decades, is it really that I'm not competent enough to ask the right question? That's certainly the simplest model but it doesn't check out. Maybe in some fields I've surpassed a point where llms are useful? It all circles back to an existential fear of delusional competency.
- all2 1y ago
  > Maybe in some fields I've surpassed a point where llms are useful? I've hit this point while designing developer UX for a library I'm working on. LLMs can nail boilerplate, but when it comes to dev UX they seem to not be very good. Maybe that's because I have a specific vision and some pretty tight requirements? Dunno. I'm in the same spot as you for some stuff. For throwaway code they're pretty great.
- fourthark 1y ago
  Yeah if it’s obscure stuff you might have to guide it, show it just the relevant code / context. Outline the design for it. They seem autonomous but often aren’t.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

383toast 1y ago

https://github.com/block/goose/discussions/3133#discussioncomment-13611837 https://github.com/block/goose/discussions/3133#discussionco...

jatins 1y ago

Used both. I think Claude Code is better because of better System prompt. It'll divide work into smaller tasks and go through it by default. You can get same behavior with Goose but will likely need to do a lot of prompting yourself