Master Cursor: From Install to Shipping Your First Feature

Getting started with Cursor is less about learning every command and more about setting up one reviewable path from an existing codebase to a tested feature. Open a real repository, give the agent durable project context, ask for a plan before edits, keep the first change narrow, and review the diff and checks yourself.

Cursor’s official Agent documentation describes Agent as a coding assistant that can search files, read and edit code, run terminal commands, use a browser, and create checkpoints. Those capabilities are useful because they shorten the distance between a question and a working change. They also mean the tool needs a clear scope before it starts.

Open a real repository first

Start with the project you intend to improve, not an empty folder created for a demo. A real repository gives the agent surrounding code, existing dependencies, tests, configuration, and naming patterns to inspect.

Before the first prompt, identify:

• The application entry points.
• The closest existing feature.
• The command for focused tests.
• The command for type or build checks.
• Generated and protected paths.
• The files that define authentication and data access.

Do not assume the agent has indexed or understood the whole project. Ask it to inspect a small, relevant slice and tell you what it found. A useful first request is:

Read the repository instructions and inspect the existing profile form.
Do not edit yet.

Return:
- the files that own the form,
- the current validation path,
- the closest existing error-state pattern,
- the focused test command,
- and any question that blocks a safe change.

Read the answer against the code. If the agent names a file that does not exist or misses the current validation path, correct the context before asking for an implementation.

Add durable project rules

Cursor’s rules documentation describes project rules stored in .cursor/rules, version-controlled and scoped to the codebase. It also documents AGENTS.md as a Markdown alternative. Project rules can encode domain knowledge, workflows, style, and architecture decisions.

Use rules for information that should survive a new chat:

# Project conventions

- Read the closest existing feature before adding a new one.
- Keep authorization in the server data boundary.
- Use the existing validation and error-state patterns.
- Do not add a dependency without explaining why.
- Do not edit generated files by hand.
- Run the focused test and type check before reporting completion.
- Report checks not run and assumptions that remain.

Keep the root guidance short. Put a rule that applies only to a particular path near that path or use a scoped project rule. Cursor’s documentation notes that project rules use .mdc files with frontmatter for description, globs, and application behavior; a plain Markdown file in .cursor/rules is ignored by that rules system. If you prefer a plain file, use the documented AGENTS.md path.

The best rules come from real review failures: money stored in the wrong unit, an authorization check skipped in one route, a second component created for an existing pattern, or a test command omitted before merge. Write those decisions down instead of hoping the next prompt remembers them.

Choose the smallest interaction

Cursor Agent has several tools, but not every task needs the full loop. Use a local edit for a local change, a question for investigation, and Agent for a multi-file task that benefits from a plan and command execution.

A practical split is:

• Local edit: a rename, type annotation, or small change in one selected area.
• Question: explain a module, trace a request, or compare two existing patterns without editing.
• Agent task: add a bounded feature across named files, run checks, and return a diff.

Cursor’s Agent documentation describes Agent access from the side pane and lists file search, reading, editing, terminal execution, browser control, and checkpoints among its tools. Treat each tool as a permission decision. If a task needs only inspection, do not expose a write-heavy workflow.

Start with a plan request:

Plan only. Add a “Duplicate project” action to the existing project page.

Constraints:
- Inspect the current project query and action patterns.
- Identify the authorization check for the current workspace.
- Do not edit until you list the expected files and tests.
- Do not introduce a dependency.
- Call out archived projects and duplicate submissions as edge cases.

A plan is not a substitute for review. It is a cheap place to catch a wrong entry point, an unsafe assumption, or an unexpectedly large scope.

Ship one narrow feature

Once the plan is sensible, ask Agent to implement one slice. Name the function, route, or component when you know it. State what must remain unchanged.

Implement only the server action for the Duplicate project feature.

- Add the action in the existing project-actions module.
- Load the project through the existing workspace-scoped query.
- Copy the project’s allowed fields and its tasks.
- Preserve the current authorization behavior.
- Do not modify the page or add the button yet.
- Add a focused test for success and a cross-workspace denial case.
- Run the focused test and report the result.

The constraints are deliberate. A multi-file agent can otherwise “finish” the visible feature by changing the UI first and filling in a new data path that bypasses an existing policy. Keep the data operation, UI action, and follow-up polish as separate changes when that makes review easier.

Ask the agent to stop when a requirement is ambiguous. A question is cheaper than a guessed billing relationship or a new permission rule.

Use the repository’s patterns

The first feature should extend an existing pattern whenever one exists. Before accepting a generated implementation, compare it with a nearby feature for:

• Input validation.
• Authentication and authorization.
• Error mapping.
• Loading and empty states.
• Data fetching and cache invalidation.
• Test fixtures.
• Analytics and audit events.

If the agent proposes a new abstraction, ask what existing pattern it could reuse and what problem the new layer solves. More files do not automatically mean a better design.

For a cross-platform product, check both platform surfaces before accepting a component change. The same user action may need different layout details while preserving the same product contract. The design system is the context your AI agent is missing covers why shared visual and interaction rules reduce drift.

Keep changes reviewable

Cursor’s Agent documentation describes checkpoints as local snapshots created during significant changes. Use them for exploratory work and recovery, but keep Git as the durable review and rollback system. A checkpoint can help you return from a wrong turn; it does not replace a branch, commit, or pull request.

During the task, steer the agent when the scope expands:

Stop. The change is now touching billing files outside the requested feature.
Re-read the task constraints, explain why those files are needed, and wait for approval.

Before accepting the result, inspect:

• The complete diff, not only the final summary.
• New files and dependency changes.
• Authorization on every new data path.
• Error behavior and user-visible states.
• Tests for the happy and denial paths.
• Generated files and configuration changes.

Delete unrelated edits rather than asking the agent to justify them after the fact. A small diff is easier to verify and easier to roll back.

Run checks that match the change

Do not stop when the application starts. Run the narrow test first, then the type, lint, build, or integration checks required by the changed boundary.

Verification report

Focused tests: passed / failed / not run
Type check: passed / failed / not run
Build: passed / failed / not run
Manual check: describe the exact flow
Remaining risk: one sentence

If a check cannot run because a service or credential is unavailable, report that honestly. “Not run” is evidence a reviewer can act on; “looks good” is not.

Test the denial path directly. If the feature reads a workspace resource, use an actor from another workspace. If it creates an external object, test a duplicate submission. If it changes a public response, check an existing consumer. Production confidence comes from the boundaries, not from the model’s explanation of the patch.

Protect secrets and side effects

Never put an API key, session token, or private customer record in a prompt, repository rule, issue description, or debug log. Cursor’s production workflow still runs inside your local development environment, so the environment’s file and network access matter.

Ask before enabling a tool that can write outside the task. Treat shell commands, browser actions, database mutations, deployment commands, and external API calls as side effects. Use application-level authorization and CI policy for rules that must hold even when a prompt is ignored.

For a detailed checklist on narrow tools, approvals, server-side authorization, and replay-safe writes, read safe AI agent tool permissions.

Extend the codebase instead of regenerating it

The value of an AI coding workflow appears after the first feature. Keep the repository’s conventions versioned, keep successful prompts with the code when they are genuinely reusable, and add a test when an agent repeats the same mistake.

OTF’s templates page verifies a free MIT component SDK and a free AI configurations pack for Cursor, Claude, and Lovable. Those assets can give an agent a known project vocabulary, but they do not replace your application’s authorization, tests, deployment checks, or review.

For a practical repository map and durable instructions, see agent-readable repository structure. The goal is not to make the model sound confident. It is to make the next change find the right files, reuse the right boundary, and show enough evidence for a human to merge it.

Getting started with Cursor is therefore a small production exercise: open a real codebase, document the rules, ask for a plan, make one narrow change, run the checks, and review the diff. You do not need to master every feature before shipping. You need a workflow that keeps the agent’s speed while keeping the codebase understandable.

Sources

• Cursor Agent documentation
• Cursor rules documentation
• OTF templates