My boss wants me to investigate using an AI agent for development. We're a small company with a limited budget, so we haven't tried any paid tools yet. I currently use a free AI account mainly to ask about features, functions, coding standards, and common industry approaches. I don't usually have it write code for me.
I'm open to trying an agent, but I don't want it generating entire features or huge blocks of code without oversight. Ideally, I could ask questions most of the time, occasionally request a small change, review exactly what it wants to modify, and accept or reject the changes selectively—something similar to reviewing a Git diff.
Does this kind of workflow exist with current development tools? Can I keep full control over what gets changed, and configure the agent to suggest small, focused edits instead of taking over the project?
4 Answers
GitHub Copilot offers both an Ask-style mode for questions and an Agent-style mode for making code changes. It works in editors such as Visual Studio Code, Visual Studio, and JetBrains IDEs, and the proposed edits generally use the editor's existing diff review tools.
That lets you switch between asking for guidance and requesting implementation while keeping the review step in your hands.
Visual Studio Code's chat and agent features support this kind of setup. When the agent proposes edits, you can view the resulting diff and accept individual lines or changes rather than blindly applying the whole response. That makes it fairly similar to reviewing a merge or patch.
Yes, that workflow is completely viable. An AI agent is still a tool, and you can keep control as long as you review its output instead of treating it as an authority. Modern IDE integrations can show every proposed change, let you inspect the diff, and allow you to accept or reject edits individually.
The important part is knowing when the generated code is useful and when it is confidently wrong. Experienced developers can get a lot out of these tools, but reviewing everything is still essential.
Claude Code with an IDE plugin can work this way too. In its normal mode, it proposes changes and displays them in a side-by-side comparison, much like version-control changes. A more permissive mode can edit files directly, but you don't have to use that.
You can also tell it to focus on explanations or small modifications rather than implementing complete features. Project instructions, such as a CLAUDE.md file, can make that preference persistent between sessions.
You can get a real productivity boost while still tracking every change. The risk is when management starts treating the AI as infallible instead of as an assistant.