# TOOLING-ITD-004: AI Tooling ## CONTEXT Multiple AI tools exist for documentation: Cursor, Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot, etc. Teams have preferences. Mandating a single tool creates friction. ## PROBLEM Should we mandate specific AI tools for documentation? ## OPTIONS CONSIDERED 1. **Mandate Cursor + Claude** - Standardize on what works 2. ✅ **No mandate, document what works** - Share recommendations, allow flexibility 3. **Ban AI tools** - Ensure "authentic" human writing ## REASONING *Option 1 (Mandate):* Creates friction for team members with different preferences. Tools evolve fast—today's best choice may not be tomorrow's. *Option 2 (Document what works):* Share what the framework authors use (Cursor + Claude) as a reference. Let teams choose. Outcomes matter, not tools. *Option 3 (Ban):* Absurd. We're an AI-forward company. ## IMPLICATIONS * No required AI tooling * Reference setup documented: Cursor IDE + Claude for iteration * Teams free to use alternatives (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc.) * Focus on output quality, not tool choice **Current recommendation (January 2026):** Claude Opus 4.5 is the preferred model for spec work—significantly better reasoning and technical depth than alternatives. This will change; update this ITD when it does. --- # Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter: ``` GET https://losthex.gitbook.io/losthex-docs/tooling-itds/tooling-itd-004-ai-tooling.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.