Cursor Workflows and VS Code Migration

A useful Cursor workflow follows six steps: define one outcome, supply relevant context, inspect the plan, review the diff, run the appropriate checks, and accept or revise the result. Cursor Agent can coordinate edits and commands, but you still need evidence that its changes solve the requested problem.

My Cursor work is mostly cloud-agent verification against deployed development branches, so I want that evidence to survive after the agent session closes. The routine below keeps a local fix from becoming an unplanned redesign and gives VS Code users a practical way to try the editor.

Our AI coding tools guide explains why we recommend Cursor; the workflows here show how to turn that choice into work you can review.

If the main question is whether to keep your existing editor, read Cursor vs VS Code before changing the rest of your setup.

How Should You Structure a Cursor Session?

Developers should structure a Cursor session around one specific change: describe the desired change, name the constraints, let the agent inspect the relevant files, review the proposed change, run the smallest useful check, then decide whether to keep it. Check the changed files and test results rather than relying on the agent saying it has finished.

Stage	Your Job	Evidence
Frame	Name outcome and boundaries	Testable prompt
Inspect	Check files and plan	Relevant paths only
Edit	Read the diff	Expected code changes
Check	Run a narrow test	Command output
Decide	Accept, revise, or reset	Reviewable change

A focused change can touch a component, a test, and a type definition without going beyond what you asked for. "Make the existing email field required and update its validation test" is reviewable.

"Make the account screen better" leaves room to change layout, copy, state handling, and interfaces at once.

Start with a Specific Request

Give Cursor the outcome, the place to work, and the things it must leave alone. Mention the expected check before the agent writes code. That turns the prompt into a small contract instead of a vague brief.

In src/components/ProfileForm.tsx:
- make the existing email field required
- keep the existing Tailwind classes and form library
- update the existing validation test only
- do not change the API payload or install packages

Run the targeted form test and show the diff before I accept it.

The file path reduces the search space. "Do not change the API payload" stops a plausible but unwanted expansion. Naming the test gives the agent a finish line that is stronger than "make sure it works."

If you do not know the exact file, ask Cursor to locate it first and return a plan with paths before asking for edits.

Keep discovery and editing separate for unfamiliar code. Start with a read-only request such as "find where password-reset errors are rendered; list the files and explain the current flow."

Once you understand the map, make the edit request. This avoids accepting a change built on the agent's first guess about the architecture.

Name the Non-Goals

Non-goals save more cleanup than broad positive instructions. Say that a request must not rename public functions, alter a database schema, update dependencies, or reformat unrelated files.

A coding agent often sees nearby improvements. Your prompt has to tell it which improvements are not part of today's job.

• Use one acceptance condition, such as a test, visible behaviour, or expected output.
• List files or folders that are in scope when you know them.
• Say which interfaces, migrations, or dependencies must stay unchanged.
• Ask for a plan first when the change crosses more than one feature area.

Inspect the Plan and Diff

Read the file list before you read every line of generated code. A small UI request that reaches authentication, environment configuration, or unrelated shared components deserves a pause. The agent may have found a genuine dependency, but it may also be following an assumption that needs correcting before the diff grows.

Then compare the diff to the request in two passes. First, look for scope: are these the expected files and does the amount of change match the task?

Second, look for behaviour: did the validation, error state, types, and tests change together in a way that makes sense? A passing test is evidence, but the diff still has to answer the original request.

Cursor makes this practical because you can reject one part of a diff rather than choosing between accepting everything and throwing the whole attempt away. If one piece is right, retain it and give a narrow correction. If the plan was wrong, reject it, state the missing constraint, and restart from the clean state.

Ask for an Explanation When the Diff Is Wide

Ask a direct question when the agent changes a file you did not expect: "Why does this task need the shared request client?" or "Which test fails without this migration?" The answer should point to a concrete call path, type, or failing check.

If it cannot, narrow the work back to the requested behaviour.

Do not use an agent's prose explanation as a replacement for the diff. It can describe an intended result while the code does something else. The changed lines and the command output remain the objects you approve.

Use the Terminal as Evidence

Cursor can carry terminal output into the conversation, which removes the tedious copy and paste after a failed check. That is a good use of the terminal integration. The command is still an instruction to your machine, however, so treat it as code you are about to run.

Start with checks that have a narrow blast radius: a focused unit test, a type check, a build, or a read-only Git status command. Read the command before approval, including its working directory, flags, and any redirected output.

A command that deletes generated files, resets a database, publishes a package, or modifies credentials needs a human decision outside the agent loop.

# Inspect the working tree
git status --short

# Run the targeted test (adapt to your project scripts)
pnpm test -- ProfileForm

# Only after reading the diff and test output
pnpm build

The test and build commands above are examples for a project with those pnpm scripts. Tests and builds execute project code and can create files; they are not read-only inspection commands.

When a check fails, give Cursor the failure output and ask for a diagnosis before asking for a fix. "Explain the first failure and propose the smallest repair" keeps it from treating every warning as a reason to rewrite the module.

If the failure looks unrelated to the change, record it and do not let the agent bury it with a broad cleanup.

When Should You Start a New Cursor Chat?

Developers should start a new Cursor chat when the task changes or Cursor keeps relying on an assumption you have corrected. Long chats collect old file names, rejected ideas, and instructions that only applied to the first task. That context can make Cursor confident about a problem you already solved. Starting a fresh conversation replaces stale context with a short, accurate brief.

Reset when the agent repeats an instruction you corrected, changes files outside the current task, or starts solving a different problem from the one in front of you. Put the goal, relevant paths, constraint, and expected check in the first message.

Add one or two files with @ when their local conventions matter, then use Cursor context and rules for durable project guidance.

A project rule says "use pnpm" or "keep tests beside source files." A task instruction says "make the existing email field required." Put the first kind in a committed rule file and the second in the conversation.

Mixing durable rules with temporary tasks makes both harder to maintain and follow correctly.

Use a Second Plan for High-Risk Work

Use a second agent while a risky change is still a file-level plan. For a migration, access-control change, payment flow, deployment change, or cross-repository feature, ask Cursor for that plan.

Ask a separate tool such as Codex to review the plan for missing tests, unsafe assumptions, and rollback needs.

A second plan earns its cost when a wrong first plan could change data, expose an account, or consume a day of repair work. Two independent plans often agree on the main route while exposing one overlooked boundary. That disagreement is the review result.

Task	First Move	Second Review?
Copy change	One focused edit	No
Component feature	Plan, diff, targeted test	Sometimes
Data migration	Written rollout plan	Yes
Access control	Threat and test plan	Yes

Can You Try Cursor Without Leaving VS Code?

Developers can try Cursor without leaving VS Code by keeping both editors installed and opening the same Git repository in Cursor for a limited trial. Cursor keeps a VS Code-style editor, which makes migration less about project conversion and more about checking that your usual tools still work. Your repository, Git history, terminal profiles, and .vscode settings remain where they are. Cursor can import settings, keybindings, snippets, themes, and many extensions, but "many" is not a guarantee for the extension you depend on most.

Keep VS Code installed during the trial. Open the same non-critical project in both editors and test the workflow that would force you back: a debugger, remote session, language server, company extension, or Microsoft-provided tooling.

Check that a commit made in one editor appears normally in the other. The trial is a compatibility test. Check Cursor's keyboard shortcut reference before standardising a team workflow.

Learn Cursor's AI Surfaces

The productive adjustment is choosing the right Cursor surface. Use inline editing for a precise local change.

Use chat to understand an unfamiliar block. Use a multi-file agent only when the task needs coordinated edits and command output.

The file explorer and command palette should still feel familiar, so avoid relearning them before you have a real agent task to practise on.

Common Workflow Failures

The common failure is a vague prompt followed by a large, unreviewed acceptance. Cursor can make the work look fast because code appears quickly. The repair time arrives later when a hidden interface changed, a dependency slipped in, or a test only covered the new happy path.

• Too much scope: split the request by visible outcome and review each diff.
• Too much context: include the smallest relevant files, then widen only when needed.
• Blind terminal approval: read every command and start with narrow checks.
• Stale conversation: open a fresh chat with the current constraints.
• Untested migration: keep VS Code beside Cursor until your critical tools prove they work.

The Workflow That Holds Up

Cursor is most useful when you check its work as it goes. Give it a clearly defined job, inspect the plan and diff, check the command results, and reset the conversation when it starts relying on outdated or irrelevant context. That routine keeps the speed of multi-file help without turning approval into a leap of faith.

FAQ

Should I let Cursor run terminal commands?

Developers should let Cursor propose and run commands only when you can read the exact command and judge its scope. Start with read-only checks and normal test commands. Pause before migrations, deletion, publishing, credential changes, or any command whose output you would not know how to recover from.

When should I start a new Cursor chat?

Developers should start a new Cursor chat when the agent keeps carrying an old assumption, the task changes, or the suggested files become wider than the request. Put the current goal, the relevant files, the checks to run, and the constraints in the opening prompt. A short reset is usually cheaper than correcting a long conversation.

Can I keep VS Code after installing Cursor?

Developers can keep VS Code installed alongside Cursor because both editors can use the same project files and Git history.

Keep VS Code installed during a trial, then test proprietary Microsoft extensions, remote development, debugging, and any work profile before changing your default editor. Nothing about installing Cursor requires removing VS Code.

Is a second AI review worth the time?

A second AI plan or code review is worth the time when a change crosses authentication, data migration, deployment, payments, or several modules. For a small local edit, it is usually slower than reading the diff yourself. The point is to expose a costly wrong assumption before the first agent writes a large change.