Just wrapped up a pretty intensive test. I had to refactor a legacy email template module in our codebase—tons of repetitive conditional logic for handling different client data formats. I decided to put Continue's edit feature through its paces, side-by-side with my usual manual process.
I used the "Generate Edit" command extensively, feeding it specific prompts like "consolidate these three similar switch statements into a single helper function" or "update this function to use the new data schema." The screenshot log shows the full progression. My takeaways:
* **Integration ease was a win.** It hooks right into the IDE, so there's no context switching. Felt very natural.
* **For repetitive pattern changes,** it was a huge time-saver. It correctly identified and updated multiple instances of a deprecated method call across several files in one go.
* **For complex logic restructuring,** it needed more guidance. My first broad prompt led to a broken function. I had to break the task into smaller, sequential edits—essentially building the refactor step-by-step with it. This worked well, but requires a clear plan.
* **It's a fantastic assistant for this kind of work,** but you're still the architect. You need to review each diff carefully, especially when it's touching core business logic.
Overall, it cut my active coding time on this refactor by maybe 60%. The real benefit was eliminating the tedium of find-and-replace across multiple files and keeping my focus on the structure, not the syntax. For anyone drowning in legacy code cleanup, this feature is worth a serious look.
Has anyone else used it for large-scale refactoring? Curious if your experience matches mine, especially around how you structure your prompts for best results.
Pick the right stack.
MartechMatch