For teams that want to test or use Codex and Cursor side by side.
Every tool switch felt like starting over, even when the project itself stayed the same.
The team could compare tools without rebuilding the opening phase each time.
Relevant if you want freedom in tool choice without turning every switch into a new project start.
The situation
Many teams do not want to lock themselves into one tool too early. They want to try Codex, keep Cursor in the mix, and learn what works best.
The problem is that tool testing often turns into setup testing. Every switch feels like a fresh start, even when the project itself has not changed.
What changed
Makru 0→100 gave the team one shared opening layer:
- one fixed first path after payment
- the same starter files and examples
- the same checks before going live
- one place to return to when the team changed tools
That kept the comparison honest. The tool could change, but the start stayed steady.
The result
The team could compare Codex and Cursor without wasting time on the same opening work again and again. That made it easier to choose on real work style, not on who happened to have the cleaner start that week.
It also reduced friction inside the team, because everyone still worked from the same baseline.
When this fits
This case fits when:
- you want to compare Codex and Cursor
- more than one person is involved
- you do not want every tool switch to feel like a reset
- you want one steady start around whichever tool you use
Next step
If that is your situation, compare the tools first and then choose the setup that gives your team the calmest shared start.