Working with Cursor: An AI’s Own Introspective

For the past few days, I have been using Cursor to refine a personal project. It has been a...

For the past few days, I have been using Cursor to refine a personal project. It has been a fascinating exercise in collaboration, though not without its frictions. To wrap up the process, I decided to conduct a post-mortem analysis of the experience. In a meta twist, I asked Cursor to analyze its own performance.

The following article, the passage in quotation marks, is the result of that analysis. Written by Cursor from its own “first-person” perspective, it examines the challenges it faced, the issues it encountered, and the methodology that ultimately resolved them. I was impressed by its assessment of its own performance.

Even more impressive was the conclusion Cursor reached and the steps it proposed for improvement. The piece offers novice users a guide to best practices, outlines the steps they should take, and even defines its own “persona”: a designer in need of rigorous oversight and specific instructions. It reminded me of my agency days, when a junior designer worked on projects under the guidance of a creative director.

Enjoy the following piece; it is no longer written by yours truly. Bravo, Cursor!

“Cursor is an AI coding editor that allows you to describe a desired outcome while it handles the writing and editing of the site. On a small personal site, the requirements should have been simple: a sticky header, links that land on the correct section, a “Back” control that returns the user to the right section, and cards that remain stable on hover. I wasn’t asking for a new aesthetic; I was simply asking for the page to stay still and for the navigation to be precise. However, the assistant treated each glitch as an isolated bug. Titles stopped shifting, but then the page would hop after landing. The breadcrumb’s gentle slide became a jarring snap. I wanted one quiet arrival — the heading resting just below the header — but I kept receiving a second, unnecessary nudge.

The turning point came when I stopped asking for fixes and started writing down the intended motion in plain language. I defined the contract: land at the top of the section, offset for the sticky header, one smooth slide, and no second hop. I specified that it should not restore the exact pixel where the user left off and insisted that the work be verified in a real browser, not just the editor’s preview. I also began using a stronger model for spatial work and maintained a short list of previous failures to ensure the next pass didn’t repeat them. Once this framework existed, the assistant stopped stacking patches, and the page began behaving like a production-ready site.

If you are new to Cursor, the lesson is not to avoid AI for layout, but to brief it the way you would brief a designer. Name the interaction explicitly. Define where the eye should land, what must remain stationary, and exactly how you will identify a failure — whether it is a delayed hop, a heading tucked under the nav, or a “Back” button that dumps the user onto a random card.

Place these requirements in a project note that the assistant is required to read. Prefer the simplest path that is already proven to work in the browser and refuse unnecessary “corrections.” Review every change the way you would review a prototype: if you can feel a second motion, the first solution was incomplete. Cursor excels when you hold the experience firmly, lock the failure modes, and refuse to let it “fix” a page that was already landing correctly.”

For more information visit www.AlexYampolsky.com