Windsurf IDE: First 30 Days with the Agentic Code Editor

Use an agentic code editor as an assistant, not as an autonomous replacement for your judgment. During your first month, start with a small task, preserve your existing workflow, and review every suggested change before accepting it.

Your First Day: Prepare Your Development Environment

Before switching editors, export your current list of extensions and save your editor settings, keybindings, and project commands. Keep a record of the tools you rely on so you can restore anything that does not transfer cleanly.

Install extensions in small batches and restart the editor after each batch. If an extension causes a crash, conflicts with another tool, or behaves unpredictably, disable it and note the issue.

Use a checklist for each extension:

• Does it support the editor you plan to use?
• Does it conflict with language, debugging, or formatting tools?
• Does it require a separate background process?
• Can you remove it without disrupting your project?

Do not assume an editor-specific compatibility panel is available. Review each extension’s documentation, test it on a non-critical branch, and remove any tool that causes instability.

Add AI Assistance Carefully

Give the agent a small, clearly bounded task before asking it to work across a whole project. For example, ask it to explain a module, identify missing setup instructions, or propose a refactoring without applying it.

Provide the agent with the relevant context:

• The purpose of the file being changed
• The adjacent modules it depends on
• The expected behavior
• Files and functions it must not modify
• The command for running tests or checks

Ask the agent to explain its plan before changing files. If the plan is unclear, narrow the request rather than allowing it to continue.

Review Refactoring Like a Code Review

When you ask for a refactoring, keep the scope limited to a few files or one function. Ask the agent to preserve public interfaces unless you explicitly approve a change.

Review every proposed change for:

• Unintended deletions
• Changed function signatures
• Weakened validation
• Incorrect error handling
• Unrelated formatting changes
• Missing updates to tests or documentation

Run your project’s tests, type checks, linters, and formatting checks before accepting the work. Treat a passing automated check as supporting evidence, not proof that the change is correct.

Use a dedicated session for each task. Begin with a prompt such as:

Review the current task and describe the files you expect to change.
Do not modify public interfaces without permission.
Run the relevant checks after each file change and stop if one fails.
Show the diff before applying any further work.

Investigate Crashes Systematically

If the editor crashes, first determine whether the problem follows your project, settings, extensions, or operating environment. A crash associated with a particular extension is different from a general editor failure.

Try these steps:

• Disable recently installed extensions.
• Start the editor without extensions.
• Test the editor on a small unrelated project.
• Reintroduce essential extensions one at a time.
• Record what changed before each crash.
• Keep a known-good settings backup.

Avoid relying on undocumented command-line switches unless the editor documentation confirms that they are supported. If the editor becomes unstable, continue work in a reliable editor while you isolate the cause.

Build Better Prompts

Start each request with the file’s role, the behavior you need, and the boundaries you want the agent to follow.

For example:

You are editing the payments/webhook.ts file.
It receives payment events and calls the order and receipt modules.
Refactor the invoice handler to prevent duplicate processing.
Preserve its public interface and do not modify unrelated functions.
Explain the approach before editing and show the resulting diff.

Replace vague requests such as “clean this up” with a specific outcome. State what must remain unchanged, which files are in scope, and how the agent should verify its work.

Integrate the Editor Into Your Workflow

Before the first real task, decide how the agent fits into your normal process. Keep code review, testing, version control, and deployment under your control.

Use these practices:

• Preserve settings: Back up your editor configuration and review any automatic import.
• Keep tests authoritative: Require relevant checks to pass before accepting a change.
• Preview changes: Use a diff view when the editor provides one.
• Protect permissions: Do not allow broad filesystem or command access without a clear need.
• Separate tasks: Use a fresh session for unrelated work.
• Review dependencies: Check any package or configuration changes before accepting them.
• Set time limits: Stop long-running agent tasks when they stop producing useful progress.
• Protect credentials: Keep secrets out of prompts, source control, and generated files.

Questions to Ask the Vendor

Before committing to an agentic editor, ask:

• Which parts of an existing editor configuration transfer automatically?
• How are incompatible extensions identified?
• What data does the agent send to its AI services?
• Can you disable automatic file changes?
• Can you restrict commands, folders, and network access?
• Are plans, usage limits, and billing terms clearly displayed?
• What happens to your data and settings if you cancel?
• Can you export your prompts, settings, and project context?
• How do you report crashes, unsafe suggestions, or privacy concerns?
• Does the vendor document changes to commands, permissions, and agent behavior?

Your First-Month Checklist

Begin with a small side project or non-critical branch. Introduce the editor gradually, save repeatable prompts, and keep a rollback path for every significant change.

At the end of the month, review:

• Which tasks the agent handled reliably
• Which suggestions required substantial correction
• Which extensions or settings caused problems
• Whether the workflow improved your understanding of the project
• Whether the added review work is worthwhile

If you cannot explain why a suggested change is correct, do not merge it. The editor should remove repetitive work while leaving you responsible for architecture, security, quality, and the final decision.