Agentic Coding: Rules, skills, subagents, and reflection—how we steer models so multi-step work stays coherent. — Cursor Blog | Neura Market
    Neura MarketNeura Market/Cursor
    ChatGPTChatGPTClaudeClaudeGeminiGeminiCursorCursorGrokGrokPerplexityPerplexityDeepSeekDeepSeek
    CoPilotCoPilotStable DiffusionStable DiffusionMidjourneyMidjourney
    View All Directories
    OverviewRulesPromptsMCPsAgentsBlogVideosGuidesCoursesCommunityExtensionsTrendingGenerate
    CursorBlogAgentic Coding: Rules, skills, subagents, and reflection—how we steer models so multi-step work stays coherent.
    Back to Blog
    Agentic Coding: Rules, skills, subagents, and reflection—how we steer models so multi-step work stays coherent.
    ai

    Agentic Coding: Rules, skills, subagents, and reflection—how we steer models so multi-step work stays coherent.

    Burak Boduroğlu March 20, 2026
    0 views

    Agentic coding here means treating the LLM as part of a system: you supply constraints (rules),...

    **Agentic coding** here means treating the LLM as part of a *system*: you supply constraints (rules), reusable procedures (skills), and split responsibilities (subagents), then merge and review (reflection) instead of hoping one giant prompt does it all. This repository is a small, concrete rehearsal of that pattern. The runnable piece is a **User Analytics** dashboard—enough UI and mock data to force real decisions about structure and state. The artifact matters less than the **orchestration layer** you see below: the same ideas written as **code-shaped docs** you can skim like a technical post, not a pile of file links. --- ## The thesis (one glance) ```text ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Runnable app ≈ ~25% of what you optimize for │ │ Agentic layer (rules, skills, subagents, reflection) ≈ rest │ │ │ │ Goal: repeatable, inspectable workflows—not one-off prompts │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` --- ## Rules: project manifest Rules are non-negotiables: what kind of product this is allowed to be. Think of this block as the spirit of `AGENTS.md`—the constitution in miniature. ```yaml # agents.manifest — frontend-only dashboard sandbox constraints: backend: none # never pretend a real service exists database: none data_source: simulated # APIs are mocked; responses are structured principles: - Always simulate API responses (shape, timing, errors) - Use mock data generators with internal consistency - State and metrics must feel like one snapshot, not random literals - UX realism > technical pedantry when they disagree deliverables_expectation: - Clean React components, modular layout - Reusable hooks for async-shaped flows - Dummy data that could fool a demo audience briefly workflow_outline: - Understand the feature - Split: UI + state + data (+ polish) - Delegate to roles (see subagents) - Validate consistency - Reflect and refine UX ``` --- ## Skills: when to reach for which playbook **Skills** are not philosophy; they are *repeatable procedures* for recurring jobs. Each entry is short on purpose—it is muscle memory, not a tutorial. ```yaml # .agents/skills — local playbooks component-generation: when: building or extending UI pieces good_finish: - Clear purpose and props contract - Structure before ornament - Styles and patterns reusable across the dashboard dashboard-design: when: composing a screen, not a single widget good_finish: - Cards, KPIs, chart, clear hierarchy - Layout breathes; density feels intentional mock-data: when: anything the UI will render as “facts” good_finish: - IDs, timestamps, plausible variation - No lazy filler that breaks suspension of disbelief state-patterns: when: async UX (even when nothing hits the network) good_finish: - loading → success → error paths read as one story - Retry and optimism where they make sense for the scenario ``` --- ## Subagents: who owns what Splitting work is a feature. The **orchestrator** holds intent and merges; specialists own slices. **Reflection** is a mandatory last pass—not a bonus round. ```text ORCHESTRATOR (.agents/orchestrator.md) ────────────────────────────────────── • Parse intent • Decompose into sub-tasks • Assign → merge • Guard cross-cutting consistency DELEGATION MAP (orchestrator → specialist) ────────────────────────────────────────── UI work → UI Builder State / async → State Manager Data / API → Mock API Generator Polish → UX Enhancer ``` ```yaml # specialists — one job each ui_builder: focus: React surfaces, hooks, composition avoid: hardcoded data where props or hooks should feed the tree state_manager: focus: loading, errors, fake delays, optimistic updates goal: async that feels real without a wire mock_api: focus: JSON shape, latency, failure modes rule: always structured enough to drive real UI branches ux_enhancer: focus: skeletons, motion, empty states, layout polish goal: demo-credible, not merely functional ``` ```yaml # reflection — “does it still feel like one app?” reflection_pass: consistency: - KPIs and time series agree (e.g. same snapshot / generatedAt story) ux_realism: - Latency + occasional errors + Retry exercise the real flow polish: - Dark analytics read, skeletons, accessible error region persistence_story: - Tracked accounts: actions survive refresh (e.g. localStorage) without contradictions ``` --- ## End-to-end flow The loop is simple; **agentic coding** pays off when you run it every time—not only on “big” tasks. ```mermaid flowchart LR userReq[UserRequest] orch[Orchestrator] ui[UIBuilder] state[StateManager] api[MockAPI] ux[UXEnhancer] merge[MergeOutputs] refl[Reflection] out[Deliverable] userReq --> orch orch --> ui orch --> state orch --> api orch --> ux ui --> merge state --> merge api --> merge ux --> merge merge --> refl refl --> out ``` ```text Plan → Execute → Review → Refine ↑___________________| (reflection closes the loop) ``` --- ## Steal this shape for your own repo You only need a thin stack: one manifest-style rules doc, a few skill stubs, subagent one-pagers, and a reflection checklist. If you use Cursor, wire that layer into your session **before** the editor fills with components—for example, a Plan Mode block that pulls in the same manifest, skill names, and subagent paths so the model loads *constraints first*. ```markdown <!-- Example session preamble (trim to taste) CONTEXT: - Frontend-only; no real API or DB. - Follow the project manifest (rules): simulated data, consistent state, UX realism. - Use skills: component-generation, dashboard-design, mock-data, state-patterns. - Delegate mentally or explicitly: UI Builder, State Manager, Mock API, UX Enhancer. - Finish with reflection: consistency, believable errors/retry, polish, persistence. OUTPUT: - Components + hooks + mock API shapes + UX notes in one coherent story. --> ``` --- ## Where this lives in the tree Everything above is documented in-repo; this block is just a map. ```text agentic-coding.md # this essay (agentic layer walkthrough) AGENTS.md # rules (constitution) .agents/orchestrator.md # coordinator + delegation .agents/subagents/*.md # UI, state, mock API, UX .agents/reflection.md # last-pass checklist + project specifics .agents/skills/*/SKILL.md # playbooks README.md # runbook + Plan Mode prompt example ``` --- *Small app on purpose: a sandbox where agentic coding—rules, skills, subagents, reflection—stays visible and easy to copy into your own projects.* --- Note: This project isn’t exactly the one discussed here, but it works on a similar idea. You can check out the details and source code on GitHub: [GitHub Agentic Coding Project](https://github.com/burakboduroglu/agentic-project)

    Tags

    aicursoragentsllm

    Comments

    More Blog

    View all
    Cursor vs Claude Code in 2026: Which AI Coding Tool Actually Makes You Faster?claudecode

    Cursor vs Claude Code in 2026: Which AI Coding Tool Actually Makes You Faster?

    I've spent the last three months shipping production code with both Cursor and Claude Code. Not toy...

    A
    Atlas Whoff
    The 5 MCPs that actually changed how I use Cursor and Claude Codeai

    The 5 MCPs that actually changed how I use Cursor and Claude Code

    I've been testing MCPs heavily in Cursor and Claude Code. Here are the 5 that actually changed how I...

    V
    vdalhambra
    AI-Powered Development 2026: Beyond Basic Code Generationaicoding

    AI-Powered Development 2026: Beyond Basic Code Generation

    AI-Powered Development 2026: Beyond Basic Code Generation How AI assistants have evolved...

    L
    lufumeiying
    Cursor AI vs GitHub Copilot: Developer Comparison 2025microsoft

    Cursor AI vs GitHub Copilot: Developer Comparison 2025

    Cursor AI vs GitHub Copilot: Developer Comparison 2025 The AI-Powered Code Completion...

    I
    Icarax
    How to Build 3D & AR Apps with AI — Cursor, Windsurf, Claude Codeai

    How to Build 3D & AR Apps with AI — Cursor, Windsurf, Claude Code

    AI coding assistants are great at generating UI code. But ask them to build a 3D scene or an AR...

    T
    Thomas Gorisse
    AI Coding Market Share 2026: Who's Winning?aitools

    AI Coding Market Share 2026: Who's Winning?

    Claude Code holds 54% of the AI coding market. Cursor hit $2B ARR. Copilot leads enterprise. Here's what the 2026 numbers actually mean.

    J
    Jangwook Kim

    Stay up to date

    Get the latest Cursor prompts, rules, and resources delivered to your inbox weekly.

    Neura Market LogoNeura Market

    Discover the best AI prompts, plugins, and resources for Cursor and more.

    Content Types

    • Rules
    • Prompts
    • MCPs
    • Agents
    • Guides

    Platforms

    • ChatGPT Directory
    • Claude Directory
    • Gemini Directory
    • Cursor Directory
    • Grok Directory
    • Perplexity Directory
    • DeepSeek Directory
    • CoPilot Directory
    • Stable Diffusion Directory
    • Midjourney Directory
    • All Directories

    Resources

    • Blog
    • Documentation
    • Help Center
    • Marketplace

    Legal

    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Service

    © 2026 Neura Market. All rights reserved.

    |

    Not affiliated with any AI platform vendors.