I gave the same bug to Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, and their open-source rival — only one handled it like a pro
This title could be clearer and more informative.Try out Clickbait Shieldfor free (5 uses left this month).
A designer with limited coding experience tested Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, and the open-source multi-agent tool Eigent against the same deliberately broken HTML file containing two hidden bugs. Claude Code (running Opus 4.7) gave a tight diagnosis and fixed both bugs on the first try. Codex (GPT 5.6 Sol) produced the deepest analysis, catching accessibility issues and pricing logic problems beyond what was asked, then fixed everything unprompted. Antigravity (Gemini 3.1/3.5 Pro) struggled initially with failed edits and a crashed run before succeeding on a third attempt. Eigent, running Qwen 3.5 9B locally via LM Studio with a multi-agent workforce, produced the most thorough diagnostic report but took over 15 minutes across three attempts to actually fix the file. All four eventually fixed the bugs, but Codex was rated the best overall for depth and initiative.
Table of contents
Claude Code caught more than I asked forCodex did the deepest readAntigravity got there in the endEigent ran a full workforce on a small jobQuestions this post answers
Which AI coding assistant is best at debugging code without extra guidance, Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, or Eigent?
Codex, running on GPT 5.6 Sol with high reasoning, produced the deepest read among the four tools tested. It caught the same root-cause bugs as Claude Code but also flagged an unused billing variable, a misleading pricing label, and a missing accessibility attribute for screen readers, then fixed all of it unprompted when asked for a fix. Comparing AI coding assistants on real bugs helps developers pick the right tool on daily.dev.
What went wrong when using Antigravity with Gemini to fix code bugs?
Antigravity initially failed to edit a file directly, instead pasting code snippets into chat while admitting the full file kept getting cut off, and a second attempt using Claude Sonnet 4.6 Thinking crashed within one second with an execution error. A third attempt after switching Gemini's reasoning from low to high and explicitly instructing it to edit the file in place finally succeeded. Developers weighing agentic coding tools track reliability issues like these on daily.dev.
How does Eigent, the open-source local AI coding agent, compare to Claude Code and Codex for debugging?
Eigent, running Qwen 3.5 9B locally via LM Studio with a multi-agent workforce, produced the most thorough diagnostic report of any tool tested, including a markdown file with status labels, line numbers, and expected-vs-actual behavior for each feature. However, fixing the bug took over 15 minutes across three attempts on 8GB VRAM, far slower than the other tools. Anyone choosing between local and cloud coding agents can compare tradeoffs like these on daily.dev.