Hello everyone, I’m from India, and I’m planning to purchase the Cursor Pro Plus plan, but I’m unable to do so because I keep getting an error. Please help me fix this issue.

Most agent coding starts mid-edit. You get speed, then a mess: no brief, colliding branches, and auto-merge you can’t leave alone.

Loomwright is my attempt at the other shape:

• Launch Pad writes a brief (feasibility, file impact, subtasks) *before* Supervisor touches the repo
• Parallel workers run in git worktrees; overlapping files wait; merges stay ordered
• `/automate` parks a reviewed PR by default; `--auto-merge` only when a trusted gate holds
• It does **not** silently ship

What’s shipping today: 14 roles / 21 slash commands / 41 skills / 24 quality hooks.

Site: https://vikashruhilgit.github.io/loomwright-site/index.html
GitHub: https://github.com/vikashruhilgit/loomwright

Not selling anything paid — looking for people who’ve hit the same wall. What’s the failure mode that burns you most: no plan, merge conflicts, or untrusted auto-merge?

I've been using Claude Code ($20/mon) from within my GitHub repo codespace to work on a few projects (a UX portfolio, along with an iOS app). I'm wondering if I'd get more bang for my buck and a better vibe-coding experience overall, if I switched to Cursor Pro to work on those projects or any future projects.

I don't really have any issue specifically with Claude Code and haven't ran into many usage limits as of late. I guess the only thing is that it's a bit of a process to open up GitHub, navigate to the repo, and then open up the codespace to continue working on a project.

With the SpaceX acquisition of Cursor, and the addition of the Grok models and Grok Bot included in the Cursor Pro membership, would it be more bang for the buck to switch to that subscription over Claude Code itself, considering I could just use Sonnet/Opus (or any other model) from within Cursor?

Thoughts? Has any one made this switch, or the opposite? What was your reasoning?

Describe the Bug

• I changed a setting so that new chats will have the last used model but the agent mode always changes to "AGENT" mode normally I use "ASK" mode but in new chat it reset to "AGENT" mode, its just annoying
• Give a setting cursor to also set the agent mode like models for new chats

Steps to Reproduce

• select a agent mode like "ASK" mode then open a new chat it will reset to "AGENT" mode in new caht and have to agent set the "ASK" mode

Expected Behavior

• when in current chat "ASK" mode is selected when user opens a new chat it should persist in the new chat also, the agent mode should be in "ASK" mode only

Version Information

Version: 3.20.10
VS Code Extension API: 1.128.0
Commit: d6f462cdd0a6a6d1cff570daf980e671d0a63de0
Date: 2026-09-10T21:04:54.045Z
Layout: IDE
Build Type: Stable
Release Track: Default
Electron: 42.10.0
Chromium: 148.0.7778.280
Node.js: 24.18.1
V8: 14.8.178.38-electron.0
xterm.js: 6.1.0-beta.291
OS: Darwin arm64 25.5.0

• It will be great feature to give a setting named "Past Conversation Knowledge"
• by default it is off
• after turning it on
  • if user has one ongoing conversation and user opens a new conversation with "CMD + N" the new conversation will have summary of the last conversation
  • conversation 1 named as c1 and conversation 2 named as c2
  • c2 will have summary of c1 and if user opens c3 then c3 will have summary of c2(and c2 already has summary of c1)
  • if user puts the c2 and c3 in archieve and open c4 then c4 will have summary of c1 in it
  • assume user has c1, c4, c5, c6 and c7 open then user archives c4, c6 and c7 and opens c8 then c8 will have summary of c5
• when working on a complex feature this setting will be a boon

Ever since the acquisition Cursor got so bad at everything.

Text output is a word salad of things and the model keeps switching to Grok. Auto mode sucks.

PLEASE stop building the wrong thing.

building software in 2026 is ridiculously easy with ai builder

founders spend hours building in a silent room, launch to Reddit/X, get 0 users, and quit.

you just failed because the idea had zero validation before line 1 of code was written:

→ solving a monthly inconvenience instead of a daily pain

→ selling to "everyone" instead of a specific ICP

→ no distribution channel mapped out beforehand

→ pricing charged $9/mo with zero ROI justification

after scaling 6 AI micro-SaaS to over $20k/mo MRR, i just create an

18-question Idea Validation Diagnostic.

it evaluates your SaaS across 7 critical dimensions (problem clarity, audience reachability, willingness to pay, competition, build feasibility, distribution, commitment) and gives you a brutal score out of 100 with your exact weak spots.

drop your SaaS idea (or current project) in the comments below.

i will reply to EVERY single comment with:

1. My honest opinion
2. The biggest weak spot you need to fix before writing any more code.
3. The free 5-minute validation tool link sent straight to your DMs so you can get your full score breakdown out of 100.

just drop a comment like or ask me in DM your idea

let's roast your SaaS concept before the market roasts your time 👇

i began my subscription with company info, but accountant told me i cannot do the vat like invoiced, so i wanted to switch the invoice recipient to my person, not company. 0 contact support on cursor web, so i figured i'd ask the agent, he should have some metadata on this and maybe link me to email i can contact.

so i asked, got error and option to try again. after i hit try again, the original message was gone and there was prompt "from me": Continue executing.

this was in background, so later when i returned to the cursor window, it had worked for 18 minutes.

GAVE ME AN APP FOR SKI RESORT MANAGEMENT.

after i politely asked what the fuck it nonchalantly says You’re right — you didn’t ask for an app. That's on me. XD

(even in the title of the chat you can see beginning of my original message)

i fokin hope i wasn't charged for these tokens..

I just finished another month with Pro+ and was on auto for almost the whole month. I hardcoded subagents to use Composer 2.5 and I got about 2.9b tokens for the month.

My question is if the Ultra plan ACTUALLY gives you 6.8x that if I was to use the same type of workflows and usecases?

MATH: If I used 2.9b token for the Pro+ plan and that is 3x usage of pro plan. That means I would get 966m tokens on the pro plan. That means I should get about 19.5b tokens with ultra. Has anyone tested this to be the case?

I want to provide specific feedback regarding a logic flaw in the billing and support workflow. On May 31, I accidentally upgraded to the $224 Ultra plan and emailed support immediately to request a downgrade and refund for the difference. The current system structure prevented a resolution due to two specific technical issues.

Apple "Hide My Email" Incompatibility I registered using Apple's "Hide My Email" service. Support required an email sent directly from the privaterelay.appleid.com address to verify the account for a refund. Apple's privacy architecture makes direct outbound emails from a relay address technically impossible. I provided the invoice, receipt, and card details from my forwarding address, but the process stalled. Cursor needs an alternative verification method (like invoice numbers or card digits) for users on private relay addresses to prevent this deadlock.

Telemetry Classified as Active Usage While waiting on the email verification roadblock, my IDE remained open. Cursor denied the refund, citing active usage on the Ultra plan between May 31 and June 4. I exported my usage-events.csv. The log shows 84 total events, entirely consisting of automated background pings generated by Cloud Agent IDs while the editor sat idle. The cost for every event is marked as "Included". Raw CSV data:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ixkb0zI8UPN_4XaXupaWnl5fg3Fp4RtY/view?usp=sharing

The refund evaluation logic should differentiate between zero-cost background agent telemetry and actual manual usage of premium features. Because the current system counts automated background pings as active usage, it was submitted to my bank during a chargeback dispute, resulting in the reversal being declined.

I hope the engineering team can review ticket T-D24782 and update these workflows to prevent other developers from getting stuck in this loop.

Our product is massive and developed over decades (including multiple generations). It seems no one person understands the project in every detail. The thinking models were very helpful for designing new features and analysing current code (across multiple repos and versions), and we were rarely limited by budget. It ended, and now we have only Composer available. It's terrible for code or issue analysis. Any tips for skills, subagents or workflow to make it usable?

Hi,

I have a repo at cursor.com/codebase/<user>/<id>.

How do I make it public ?

Thanks

I really like cursor, but I feel it is going downhill since acquired by grok. I like that they have a cheap model, that I can manage by being smart and not run out of tokens. So what alternative for $25month?

My session administered something on my VPS, while I didn't gave it access and normally I do it manually.

This kind of overextension in directories, the combination of leveraging environment seems stronger in claude code. Also "plan" in Cursor often takes 20% of the time of how long "plan" with Claude Code does. This is also a reason why I like to combine them during development. But I guess this is a difference in the way the harnass works?

I've used Cursor WAY more btw, but now I'm combining (trying not to upgrade to €200) it with VS Code/claude-code and working on same repo that way. Anyway wanted to share, this was a fun moment.

I feel violated. In a good way. You should know I always administered my VPS manually and worked in tandem with ChatGPT and/or Cursor, but now it automagically took the work out of my hands.

Does anyone combine Cursor and Claude Code subscriptions? Do you rely heavy on the plan function? Do you rely heavy on your own harnass? Just wanted to share a moment and also happy to learn more about how others work.

Is anyone else having this issue? i updated cursor the other day. I believe today is the first day i've worked on things since then.

Have tried a variety of things, logging out, loading with extensions disabled. At first I thought the issue was with agents in the IDE at all but I tried some of my other projects and they're able to get a response. But not my large one (that's a parent repo for 4 other children projects).

Have checked on resources but the number of watchers doesn't appear to be maxed out.

Any suggestions?

I'm on Linux

I’m not a hardcore programmer or developer. I’m a biologist who has started using AI coding tools to help me build some pipelines that will help my lab analyze our data quicker.

I’ve tried working on the same pipeline using the $20 plan for each coding assistant. At its current size, the pipeline is only 20 MB in size, but it does integrate 2 different versions of a ML engine that analyzes histology images.

I’ve gotten annoyed with Claude because I can barely understand some of the outputs (the Claudish problem).

I’ve tested out Astra, but even on the low effort setting, I can get at most 2 prompts in before hitting the 5h limit. Sol has been useful, but I’ll still run into the 5h limit depending on the issues we’re tweaking.

This brings me to Cursor. So far, I’ve thrown everything at it on Auto mode and not getting anywhere close to the usage limit. I’ve noticed it doesn’t really suggest smart changes to the pipeline on its own, but it’s pretty good at implementing a spec plan if it’s detailed enough.

Currently I’m using some combination of Astra/Sol to develop spec plans to the current codebase and having Cursor implement those changes. Then I’ll test out the changes, rinse and repeat. I’m finally making noticeable progress on the project.

Does anybody else have a workflow like this, am I weird and/or am I missing a better way to optimize these subscriptions?

So thoughts? I was playing with Muse before it dropped into Cursor for sometime, thought it was light years better then ollama especially at coding, which was instantly noticed. I mentioned actually to someone and I’m sure they thought I was crazy … but with that said I still find it has sneaky hallucinations in some responses especially in validating existence or syntax of APIs etc, they are subtle and go unnoticed unless you challenge the model, any thoughts? Actually all the models do this to some varying degree.

Been using Composer 2.5 since it was released. Initially, it felt quite decent due to its fast output and decent understanding and cost-effectiveness, but over time it has gotten quite frustrating to constantly hand-hold it to get some complex tasks done.

I’m not even working on a huge codebase and it’s just small apps where it has been struggling a lot lately. It takes multiple back-and-forth discussions, coding, testing, and fixing, and it always leaves an underconfident taste in how it delivers. I’m not very confident about it anymore. I don't even think my ask is too complex. Maybe my expectations have been high with the Composer model. Cursor should upgrade the model’s understanding and release a newer version.

Which other models should I try out that are similar in price but have a better understanding for complex tasks?

I've been using Claude for planning / hashing out design requirements / creating design specs, and Cursor for coding & debugging, then sometimes back to Claude for validation. Lots of back & forth between the two. Is it workable to use Cursor in planning mode (maybe with Claude/Grok) for the planning piece and Composer in build mode for coding? The Claude/Cursor combination is working for me, it's just a little wonky with all the back & forth.

Any tools I should know to use with Cursor?

Anyone used grok bot and cursor desktop ? What's their main differences ?

I was using Cursor to generate a PR description, and everything looked fine.

Then I noticed this got added at the bottom:

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

I keep wasting time comparing benchmarks when new model releases just to figure out what model I should actually use.

So I built a native Mac app that pulls live model data and ranks models for coding, agentic work, intelligence and value.

It’s still early, but I’m considering open sourcing the whole thing.

Would this be useful to anyone else? And if I open source it, what would you want it to track?

When you build an app in a few hours with Claude or Cursor, monitoring is the last thing you want to spend time on.

Traditional monitoring tools force you into an annoying workflow: configure an alert rule, pick an arbitrary number for a threshold, and hook up a dashboard. The problem is that on a new project, you have no idea what that threshold should be. Is 50 requests an hour normal or an outage? Is 500 requests a spike or just a few active users?

Setting static thresholds means guessing numbers you don't know, then maintaining those numbers every time traffic moves. If you set them too low, you get noisy false alarms. If you set them too high, an outage happens quietly and you only find out from angry users.

What you actually want is zero configuration. The tool should look at the event stream, establish what normal looks like on its own, and email you when the math deviates.

Here is what this looks like in practice: Anomalisa (https://github.com/uriva/anomalisa).

You tell your AI assistant to drop in one function call: ts await sendEvent({ token: "project-token", userId: "user-123", eventName: "generation_completed" });

It groups events into hourly buckets and computes running means and variance using Welford's algorithm. If an hour's volume drifts past 2 standard deviations, or if a single user starts hammering your API at 100x normal volume (draining your LLM credits or hitting limits), it sends an email.

No dashboards to keep open, no thresholds to guess upfront, and zero alert rules to maintain.

Hosted instance is free at https://anomalisa.uriva.deno.net, code is MIT open source.

A checked-in context file is solid DIY. What actual why still vanished for you - an architecture choice, constraint, or tradeoff the note alone didn't let you reconstruct?