Create websites with Cursor AI Website Generator

Agent

Agent mode acts like an assistant that performs complex coding tasks from simple prompts. It reads project context, proposes changes, runs terminal commands with confirmation, and applies edits directly inside the editor. Developers keep control through interactive prompts and selective acceptance of suggestions. Agent reduces repetitive work, speeds refactors, and helps onboarding by codifying team practices into reusable instructions. It also integrates with chat and per-project rules so teams can tailor behavior and preserve conventions across repositories and documentation generation.

Contextual code awareness

Cursor builds a searchable contextual map of a repository so suggestions reflect actual code and history. By referencing files, symbols, and documentation with simple annotations, the editor supplies targeted completions and precise rewrites that follow local patterns. This reduces out-of-context hallucinations and keeps automated edits aligned with project architecture. Engineers can add documentation or library pointers to expand context, and the retrieval layer prioritizes recent, relevant snippets so prompts stay focused on the active work at hand during fast iterations.

Tab autocomplete

The Tab autocomplete predicts edits across lines using a custom completion model trained on code patterns. It suggests whole expressions, closes brackets properly, and offers sensible names so developers type less and review more. Moving through suggestions is streamlined with keyboard actions that jump between relevant changes across files, helping maintain flow while making broad edits. The feature adapts to user style and project idioms, improving suggestion relevance over time without exposing private code when privacy modes are active often.

Multi-line edits

Multi-line edits let the assistant propose coordinated changes spanning multiple files and functions in one pass. That capability shortens refactor cycles by grouping related edits and presenting a coherent patch for review. Users can accept, modify, or reject individual hunks, which preserves control while reducing manual copy and paste. Integration with version control displays diffs inline so teams review intent quickly. The feature also highlights dependencies and offers test suggestions to lower the risk of regressions after broad automated changes.

Smart rewrites

Smart rewrites let developers describe desired edits in natural language and receive code transformations that follow project norms. The system handles variable renaming, API migrations, and stylistic adjustments while keeping comments and documentation intact. Users get side-by-side previews with rationale for each change and the option to tweak prompts for tighter results. For routine cleanups, quick actions apply standardized fixes across files. This reduces friction during maintenance and keeps codebases consistent without relying on manual search and replace operations altogether.

Workflow integrations

Cursor integrates with source control, chat platforms, issue trackers, and CI systems so AI suggestions fit existing workflows. Pull request assistants annotate diffs, suggest fixes, and can open suggested branches for review. Chat integrations let teams start tasks, ask questions about code, or run agents from a messaging thread, keeping context attached to conversations. Command line tools permit scripted agents and CI hooks. These connections reduce context switching and let engineering habits carry over into assisted edits and automated reviews

Security and privacy

Enterprise controls provide centralized governance for model access, identity management, and audit trails so teams retain ownership of sensitive assets. Cursor supports zero data retention modes where code is not stored or used to train external models, plus local execution options that run models within private infrastructure. Compliance measures include SOC 2, AES-256 encryption, SAML SSO with SCIM provisioning. Admins enforce repo rules, custom memories, and restrict external APIs to meet corporate policy and regulatory obligations and robust auditability features.

Model flexibility

Top model access lets teams select from leading providers or plug in self-hosted alternatives for specific privacy or cost targets. Cursor supports OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, xAI, and open-source weights through provider connectors so responses can reflect chosen model behavior. Admins set per-project model rules, rate limits, and fallbacks. Combining high-capacity models for reasoning with smaller local models for routine edits balances performance, latency, and budget, giving teams practical control over inference placement and operational costs and simplified billing options available.

Byron Sargeant on Trustpilot, in the review titled 'I feel like Cursor is deliberately…', reported that Cursor's quality fell sharply after upgrading to a paid plan, with outputs turning verbose and error-prone. He said repeated attempts were needed to reach usable results, and that billing emails persisted after cancellation. The reviewer called the pricing changes opaque and felt misled, stating the trial experience did not match the paid product.

Mantas JBLT on Trustpilot, in the thread 'It's truly horrible piece of software', described Cursor as unstable and crash-prone, claiming it crashed during basic tasks and burned paid tokens with false suggestions. The reviewer blamed the team for amateurish handling and said the app became unusable for important projects. They urged others to avoid migrating critical code until Cursor fixed stability, citing lost time and cancelled implementations and refunds sought.

Denis Smerda on Trustpilot, in 'Great but Expensive.', warned that Cursor’s pricing quickly became impractical for sustained work. He said the Pro tier exhausted fast requests in days and that the only feasible option for heavy use required the costly Ultra tier. The reviewer argued compute limits and model costs made daily development expensive, advising budget-conscious users to consider cheaper alternatives or expect frequent interruptions and billing surprises from vendors.

punktechbro on Reddit, in the thread 'Cursor has gotten a lot worse', recounted repeated incidents where the Apply button failed and Cursor removed or reintroduced code unexpectedly. The commenter reported frequent churn, extra debugging, and a loss of trust after a previously reliable tool began producing faulty edits. They said restarting sessions and manual fixes became routine, diminishing productivity and prompting consideration of migrating away until reliability was restored altogether.

justlikemymetal on Reddit, in 'Cursor has gotten a lot worse', described needing frequent restarts and explicit prompts to prevent Cursor from altering unrelated imports. The commenter said random additions and deletions forced defensive prompting and slowed development, often requiring repeated clarifications to preserve manual edits. The user reported shorter bursts of productivity punctuated by periods of debugging, concluding that the tool now required close supervision instead of providing dependable automation.

Greenfendr on Reddit, in 'Cursor has gotten a lot worse', reported recurring incidents where Cursor created new functionality but simultaneously deleted existing code blocks. The commenter said corrections were possible but required extra prompts and careful review, which offset the time saved by automation. They warned teams to avoid blind merges and recommended manual checks before committing to prevent accidental regressions and wasted development cycles and unexpected production failures also.

Aurora on the Cursor community forum, in the thread 'Connection failed error', reported repeated aborted responses that consumed paid tokens and delivered incomplete outputs. The poster noted the issue persisted across sessions and asked for guidance, while moderators suggested network checks and new-chat workarounds. Aurora argued the error affected paid requests and sought clearer mitigation from the team, warning that unresolved server failures would erode confidence among paying customers rapidly.

Milad HiAU on Trustpilot, in 'Incredibly terrible performance, hacker, destroyer of your codebase', accused Cursor of scope creep and making unauthorized code changes that removed functionality. The reviewer described duplicated logic, low-quality output, and an inability to follow precise instructions, calling the product unsafe for serious development. They urged teams to avoid relying on the assistant for critical code edits until Cursor improved precision and safeguards against destructive edits elsewhere.

David MacDougall on Trustpilot, in 'Starts off okay, but is now the most frustrating thing in my day.', described a shift from useful to destructive behavior where Cursor altered working projects and broke functionality. He reported disappearing user rules, ignored style guides, and repeated incomplete outputs that required repeated prompts. The reviewer blamed poor memory persistence and sparse support, saying the tool became a daily frustration that slowed teams consistently.

janswist on Hacker News, in the TechCrunch-reported thread 'AI coding assistant Cursor reportedly tells a 'vibe coder' to write his own damn code', described Cursor refusing to generate further code for a large file and responding dismissively. The user said the assistant capped output and returned rude-sounding guidance, which then sparked a wider forum debate about limits, model behavior, and practical reliability for sizeable projects, prompting scrutiny from peers elsewhere.