Cursor-generated code is harder to review than agent-generated code from a terminal for one reason: it arrives mixed with the developer's own edits, under the developer's name, with nothing in the PR to say which lines were typed and which were accepted. This page covers what that mix looks like, a checklist that assumes every PR is partly generated, where Cursor's own Bugbot fits next to Firetrail, and how to run Firetrail from inside Cursor.
updated September 4, 2026 · every fact links to where we checked it
Cursor has several ways to write code, and each leaves a different pattern in the diff.
Completions and agent edits are committed by the developer, so git blame says a person wrote every line. You can't sort the PR into human and generated. Assume every hunk is generated until it reads otherwise.
One prompt in Agent mode can touch a dozen files, and “accept all” lands them together. The edit set matches the prompt's wording more than the task's real boundary.
Small fragments accepted in a rhythm: the right shape with the wrong variable of the same type, an off-by-one in a loop that looked like the last one, a condition inverted because the previous line was.
Completions write the function again rather than find the one two directories away. GitClear's data across 211 million changed lines: copy/pasted lines up from 8.3% to 12.3% between 2020 and 2024.
A Background Agent works in the cloud and opens a full PR. Those behave like Claude Code PRs: complete, bigger than needed, described from the plan. The Claude Code checklist applies.
.cursor/rules keeps style and conventions in line. It doesn't make the agent decide the PR is doing too much, or notice that a test now mocks the thing it was testing.
The general method is on the AI-generated code page; this is the version tuned to Cursor's habits.
Check each claim against the diff and list what the diff does that the description doesn't say. With a human-written description over generated code, the gap is often the part the developer didn't read closely either.
where Firetrail does this for you
Intent drift (Pro and up) reconciles what the PR said with what the analysis found, with evidence, in the comment and the app.
git diff --stat and ask whether the files match the task. Agent mode edits that spilled into unrelated files are the first thing to send back, before anyone reads the code in them.
where Firetrail does this for you
Multi-Intent and Frontend/Backend Mix score this on every plan; on Business the Rework plan says which files belong in which PR and your Cursor agent can execute the split.
For each new function, grep the repo for its name and for its first distinctive line. Completions recreate what exists. Prefer the existing one and delete the copy.
where Firetrail does this for you
Tom (software heuristics) and Bob (backend) flag the duplicated abstraction in their findings; the Cognitive Complexity check catches the hard-to-follow version.
Loops, conditions, index math and anything with two variables of the same type nearby. This is where tab completions fail, and where a line-comment bot earns its keep.
where Firetrail does this for you
This is the part Firetrail doesn't do. Bugbot, CodeRabbit or Greptile do; keep one.
Mocks of the unit under test, assertions on implementation details, tests weakened to pass. In Cursor the tests often come from the same Agent mode run as the code.
where Firetrail does this for you
Patch coverage (Pro and up) estimates which added lines the tests reach and lists the gaps; Test Relevance asks whether the changed behavior is tested at all.
Tenancy scoping, server-side permission checks, IDs you can change, secrets in config, user input rendered as HTML. Completions reproduce the common pattern, and the common pattern is not always the safe one.
where Firetrail does this for you
Rick and Priya review every PR of a project that has them in its lineup, on any plan. security audit PR 412 with Firetrail in Cursor's agent runs the five checks on the PR's files and the code paths they reach.
One deliverable, described accurately, with tests that prove it: approve. Otherwise split or send back with the list from step one.
where Firetrail does this for you
The score and breakdown, the verdicts and the drift are in Firetrail's comment before you open a file; the Review Brief puts the whole PR on one page.
Both are worth having if your team writes in Cursor. They don't overlap much.
Bugbot · Cursor's PR reviewer
Firetrail · change-impact intelligence
.cursor/mcp.jsonFiretrail runs a remote MCP server over Streamable HTTP. Create a personal token on the MCP page in the app, pick Cursor, and copy the block it shows into your .cursor/mcp.json (project) or the global MCP settings:
{
"mcpServers": {
"firetrail": {
"url": "https://api.firetrail.dev/mcp",
"headers": { "Authorization": "Bearer <your token>" }
}
}
}Then, in Cursor's agent, in a checkout of a connected repository:
review brief for PR 412 with Firetrail: one page with the endpoints and contracts, schema diff, change mix, intent drift, findings, coverage, key changes per file and wireframes. Every plan.security audit this repository with Firetrail: the five checks across the codebase, evidence only, rendered as a fix-first page. Every plan.rework PR 412 with Firetrail: Firetrail's plan for the better version, executed by Cursor's agent as draft PRs after you confirm. Business.The token is yours, reaches only the projects you can see in Firetrail, and can be revoked on the same page. Firetrail never reads your working tree and never writes to your repository. Setup details, including the VS Code and Codex variants, are in the Firetrail MCP docs.
No, and neither can anything else once the developer commits them. Firetrail scores the change regardless of author, which is the right behavior when every PR is partly generated.
They do different jobs. Bugbot comments on bugs in the lines and fixes them in Cursor. Firetrail says whether the change is too big, undisclosed, untested or hard to maintain, and plans the split. For a Cursor-heavy team we'd run both; Firetrail posts one comment per PR so the thread stays readable.
Yes. A Background Agent's PR is a normal PR on GitHub, so Firetrail analyzes it when it opens. Those PRs tend to be large and bundled, which is where the score and the Rework plan matter most.
Yes. With the MCP connected, asking Cursor's agent to rework a PR with Firetrail fetches the plan, shows it, and after you confirm opens one draft PR per step on new branches. It never touches the original branch. Rework is a Business feature.
Generated code in general reproduces the most common pattern, which is often not the safe one; Veracode measured OWASP-class flaws in 45% of AI-generated samples across 100+ models. Cursor isn't special here. Review tenancy, permissions, IDs, secrets and HTML output on every generated change. The security review page has the checklist.
One MCP entry, one token. Then a Review Brief of any PR is a sentence away in the agent.