ATO vs a single coding runtime
If your stack is only Claude Code (or only Cursor, or only Codex), you still author there. ATO is what you add when one model is not the whole story.
| Dimension | ATO | Claude Code / Cursor / Codex alone |
|---|---|---|
| Primary job | ATO Multi-runtime ops: review, war-room, replay, receipts | Write and edit code with one agent/model family |
| Models in one session | ATO N runtimes side by side with shared audit | Usually one primary agent |
| Disagreement signal | ATO Captured as first-class product surface | Lost in clipboard / terminal scrollback |
| Regression after model swap | ATO Config ledger × stats | Manual / external eval harness |
| Install model | ATO Desktop + CLI + MCP on top of your tools | Editor plugin or CLI agent |
When to choose ATO
- Non-trivial reviews where a second model should see the first findings
- You already pay for more than one subscription and want receipts
- You need a local system of record for agent work across tools
When to choose the other tool(s)
- Day-to-day coding in one preferred agent
- Inline edits and IDE integration
- You only ever want one model
Using them together
Keep your coding agent. Add ATO for multi-LLM review (ato review --consensus), war-rooms, and local receipts.