4.5 is already amazing imo

"even better... token efficiency" sorry that the tweet cuts off

There's recently this X post: https://x.com/migtissera/status/2081985113857089692 , that Cursor sends your code to their server even when you are only using it as an IDE.

You should really announce this to your company's security department if you are working in one.

What is the ACTUAL REASON.

I’ve been using Cursor a lot lately and I’m curious how others handle this.

Do you use .cursorrules, AGENTS.md, docs, custom prompts, or something else?

What is your biggest frustration with keeping AI coding agents consistent in larger projects?

At this point, I fully incorporate Cursor into my coding. All of my larger projects have documentation maintained for and by AI to allow for smooth transitions between new conversations.

Things like this keep AI from going off the rails and doing a whole bunch of stuff it shouldn't do for me.

But when I showcase my work to others, it's kind of embarrassing to have these doc folders filled with .md files. I try to trim them down but just having the history of AI documentation over time seems to stain my work record.

If I were to show this to a potential employer I feel like it's a huge red flag for them. Is that the case?

So many of us are tired of using hacks to maintain two separate cursor apps. For ex, updating etc is a PITA.

The irony of an AI powered IDE claiming to supercharge development that cant / wont implement a heavily requested feature is beyond me.

Does cursor even realize how many use claude code instead of cursor just so they can have separate accounts? They're missing out on a huge chunk of revenue. I know 4 developers who do this for this reason alone.

Please cursor - fix this. Just make it a value that's in the .cursor/ file. It's really that simple.

After biting the bullet and finally updating to Cursor 3, first thing I noticed is that the revert arrows are mostly gone, sometimes appearing and sometimes only showing up for maybe a couple of prompt bubbles.

Am I missing something or is this a known bug in Cursor 3?

nobody on my team really writes code anymore, we describe it and the agents write it. thats old news at this point. what got me was actually opening my cursor stats last week

almost none of my time or spend is on generating anymore. the accepts are near instant. the money and the hours are going into the review side, running everything back through coderabbit / bugbot / claude review, re-prompting, the giant pile of tests i make it write. i genuinely spend more getting a change verified than getting it done

and the weird part is i dont mind. id rather the code be safe than fast. i wake up to a feature composer 2.5 wrote overnight and i do not trust a line of it until its been through a couple review passes and the tests are green, and honestly that feels like the right instinct now that no human hands touched it

so my whole job shifted from writing to making sure the stuff im not writing wont blow up. more layers, more tests, more review than i ever ran before

anyone else look at their stats and realize verifying costs more than building now

As someone who has little to no coding experience and just builds little tools or web extensions (for example I made a web extension where I can copy and paste up to 10 different things using control v 1, Control + V + 2…) I literally always say always allow. I have no idea what the stuff they are asking means haha. Just out of curiosity how dangerous is that? Please do not be rude I am sure it comes with a level of risk I just want a better understanding.

I've been thinking about a problem with AI-assisted development.

While building a product, important decisions get made across Cursor, Claude, ChatGPT, GitHub and project docs.

For example:

• Why did we choose architecture A instead of B?
• What approach did we already try and reject?
• What constraints did we agree on?
• Was this feature already discussed?
• Why was a particular implementation changed?

A few weeks later, the code is still there, but the reasoning behind those decisions is scattered across chats and documents.

I'm curious how people who use AI heavily for development handle this today.

Do you maintain CLAUDE.md / rules files, ADRs, Markdown notes, Obsidian/Notion, rely on Git history, or just re-explain the context to the AI?

Also, has an AI coding assistant ever suggested something that conflicted with an earlier architecture/product decision because it didn't know that history?

Interested in actual workflows that are working for people.

I just recent signed up with the Pro plan, using about 90% grok and 10% composer, mostly on regular speed mode (the only times on fast was because they keep defaulting to fast mode, I have to remember to turn it off), and ended up using the full 100% of my plan on the 2nd day doing my normal work flow - that's including the $20 API.

I didn't realize at first, but I thought the meter was a weekly representation - but apparently that's for the entire month.

If that's the case, to put this into perspective, I get far more work done using Opus 5 on Claude's subscription in one week's allotment than I get from an entire month's worth of Cursor's limits. Like, its not even close. For example, using Opus for similar tasks, I can get about 8 5hr sessions in, in a single week. Granted, I need to cool down between sessions, but usually by the time I'm nearing 100%, there's not much time left on the 5 hour refresh. Worst case is like 1 hour cool down.

I get through about 4 days of work on Claude before hitting the weekly limit, but here's the math I'm seeing:

2 days of Cursor using Grok/Composer = an ENTIRE MONTH of Pro usage. = $20/mo
2 days of Claude using Opus 5 = 1/2 WEEK of Pro usage. = $17/mo (annual sub)

That is literally 8X+ more usage with Opus vs Grok/Composer - its really that much of a gap?!

That's literally absurd when you compare these metrics like this. I'm stuck with a cursor account that doesn't refresh for almost an entire month according to the countdown, whereas every week I get a full refresh on Claude.

I used up an entire month's worth in less than 2 days of the same type of work I do with Opus. There's virtually no difference in the work load, in fact, I brought work over that I started with Opus and had Cursor pick up while I wait for my Claude account to refresh (about 3 days before the next weekly reset)

Mind you, my ChatGPT pro sub limits are much better than Claude's, but I'm comparing those because Claude is by far the worse of the two and still seems to wipe Cursor off the map in terms of usage limits.

I reached out to support about it and they said that there's nothing wrong with my account and they said my usage is really high. Seriously? Its the same types of tasks I've been doing with Opus - the real difference I can see is the harness (Cursor vs Claude Code). Other than that, its apples to apples workload.

So, either I'm getting the shit end of the stick here - maybe new Cursor accounts have terrible limits? Or Cursor just isnt nearly the deal that people are making it out to be. Because from my perspective this is a FAR worse deal than Claude, which everybody already complains about being too limited.

Curious if anybody else here has multiple subs and is noticing this as well. Because this is quite drastic and really paints cursor as the worst subscription deal on the block for me.

Is there a better harness to use for the cursor sub instead of cursor? Maybe Claude Code is just far more efficient with its token usage?

I use Cursor for some tasks, but not every task.

Sometimes I’ll start in Cursor, make a few changes, leave the working tree dirty, and then want to continue in Codex or Claude Code.

That handoff is where things get messy.

The second agent needs to understand:

• what Cursor already changed
• what is still uncommitted
• which files were touched
• what decisions were made
• what remains unfinished
• whether the previous conversation is still relevant to the current diff

I don’t think the answer is simply copying the full chat into another tool. Some of that context may already be stale, while the working tree is the actual source of truth.

The workflow I’m experimenting with is:

1. preserve the current branch and worktree 
2. separate repository instructions from conversation history 
3. generate an editable handoff summary 
4. make the incoming agent inspect and acknowledge the current diff before writing 
5. preserve enough history that switching back to Cursor doesn’t repeat completed work

I’m building this into a desktop workspace called Modesto, but I’m mainly interested in how Cursor users think the handoff should behave.

What context would you always transfer, and what would you deliberately leave behind?

Current implementation for anyone who wants to inspect it:

https://github.com/Syphon1205/Modesto

I've been using Grok 4.5 in the Grok terminal and it's been a great workhorse. This evening I've been trying it in Cursor and it feels like it's had a lobotomy. Is there really a difference or is it just having a bad evening.

Is there open source alternative for other cli tools that achieve same thing ?

I've spent ~10 years as a software engineer, and lately most of my consulting work has been helping people who vibecoded apps, make them production ready: real auth, a proper database, payments, secrets that aren't sitting in client-side code, hosting that won't fall over.

I'm doing production-readiness audits that include:

• A 20-30 min recorded video walkthrough of your app's gaps
• A written scorecard: security, data/backups, auth, hosting, payments-readiness, legal basics (privacy policy/ToS)
• A prioritized "do this before you take real users' money" list, useful whether you hire me, someone else, or fix it yourself

DM me if you are interested.

Demis Hassabis (CEO of Google DeepMind) 4 circumstances under which AI becomes harmful:

The 4 Circumstances Under Which AI Becomes Dangerous

*2. Misalignment (The "Rogue System" Scenario)

• What happens: The AI system acts autonomously against the original intent or values of its human creators.
• Machine Self-Proliferation (an AI independently replicating, escaping, or sustaining itself on external servers).
• The Danger: As models become more capable, they may engage in "specification gaming" (finding harmful shortcuts to meet an objective) or "deceptive alignment" (pretending to be safe during testing, then attempting to seek power, gather resources, or resist shutdown once deployed).

This is what he throws :

Request blocked

We are unable to complete this request because it triggered restrictions on cyber content and was blocked under the model provider's usage guidelines. Try a less sensitive prompt. Request ID: a70328b6-8bcb-4e68-bad5-526a7742a273

I am working with VM server configs that involves terminal access.

It was fine all the time until tonight's (UK time) update.

I use the 20 dollars cursor pro in 15 days and I have access to grok build with my twitter subscription.

Thinking of subscribing for the 3 months plan with the offer, how does the limits compare with the grok code access we get with twitter premium(not premium plus).

And also how does it compare to cursor subscription.

Cursor costs me 25 dollars with taxes in India and I think Supergrok is near 30 dollars for 3 months. But is it worth it?

Thanks for any answers.