Cursor generates code fast but reviewing it thoroughly is essential before committing. This tutorial shows a structured PR review workflow using Cursor's built-in diff view, git integration, and @git context to review AI-generated changes efficiently. You will learn what to check, how to spot common AI mistakes, and how to use Cursor itself to review its own output.
Reviewing Cursor-generated code before committing
AI-generated code passes casual review easily but often contains subtle issues: hallucinated imports, incomplete error handling, security vulnerabilities, and logic bugs. This tutorial establishes a review workflow that catches these issues before they reach your codebase.
Prerequisites
- Cursor installed with Git initialized
- Code generated by Cursor that needs review
- Familiarity with git diff and Cursor's diff view
Step-by-step guide
Review the diff before accepting
Review the diff before accepting
After Cursor generates code in Composer or Cmd+K, always review the diff before clicking Accept. Look for red lines (deletions) that should not have been removed and green lines (additions) that introduce unexpected patterns.
1// In Cursor's diff view, check for:2// 1. RED LINES: Code that was deleted but should not have been3// - Existing error handling removed4// - Comments or documentation stripped5// - Working code replaced entirely6// 2. GREEN LINES: New code that looks suspicious7// - Hardcoded values (URLs, credentials, magic numbers)8// - Missing error handling (no try/catch on async)9// - Imports from packages not in your package.json10// - console.log statements left in production codeExpected result: A mental checklist for quickly scanning AI-generated diffs.
Use @git to review all changes at once
Use @git to review all changes at once
After accepting multiple Cursor changes, use @git in Chat to get a summary of everything that changed. This catches issues across multiple files that single-file diffs might miss.
1// Cursor Chat prompt (Cmd+L, Ask mode):2// @git Review all uncommitted changes. For each modified3// file, check for:4// 1. Missing error handling5// 2. Hardcoded values that should use config6// 3. Imports that reference non-existent modules7// 4. Security issues (SQL injection, XSS, exposed secrets)8// 5. Functions without return types9// 6. Dead code or unused imports10// Report issues by file with severity (High/Medium/Low).Expected result: A structured review of all AI-generated changes with categorized issues.
Create a pre-commit review checklist
Create a pre-commit review checklist
Store a review checklist as a Cursor Notepad or custom command that you run before every commit. This standardizes the review process.
1---2description: Pre-commit review checklist3globs: ""4alwaysApply: false5---67## Pre-Commit Review Checklist for AI Code8Before committing, verify:910### Correctness11- [ ] All imports resolve to existing modules12- [ ] Return types match the function contract13- [ ] Edge cases handled (null, empty array, zero)14- [ ] Async functions have try/catch or .catch()1516### Security17- [ ] No hardcoded secrets, URLs, or API keys18- [ ] SQL queries use parameterized statements19- [ ] User input is validated/sanitized20- [ ] No eval() or innerHTML with user data2122### Quality23- [ ] No console.log in production code24- [ ] No unused variables or imports25- [ ] Function names match their behavior26- [ ] Comments are accurate (not stale)Expected result: A reusable checklist that standardizes code review for AI-generated output.
Use BugBot for automated review
Use BugBot for automated review
If you have Cursor Pro+, enable BugBot to automatically scan changes on feature branches. BugBot compares against main and flags potential bugs with confidence ratings.
1// BugBot automatically reviews when you push to a branch.2// To manually trigger a review in Cursor:3// 1. Commit your changes to a feature branch4// 2. Push to remote: git push origin feature-branch5// 3. BugBot scans the diff against main6// 4. Issues appear with confidence ratings7// 5. Click 'Fix in Cursor' for one-click fixes8//9// BugBot Autofix has a 35%+ merge rate — it can10// fix many issues automatically.Expected result: Automated AI review catching issues before human PR review.
Do a final manual sanity check
Do a final manual sanity check
After automated checks, do a quick manual review of the actual behavior. Run the code, check the UI, test the API endpoint. AI-generated code can be syntactically perfect but logically wrong.
1// Quick sanity checks:2// 1. Does the code compile? npx tsc --noEmit3// 2. Do tests pass? npm test4// 3. Does it work in the browser/API?5// 4. Does the git diff look reasonable for the task?6// (small task = small diff, big diff = suspicious)78// If the diff is unexpectedly large:9// Cursor Chat: @git Why are there changes in 15 files10// when I only asked to update the UserProfile component?11// List all files that changed and explain each change.Expected result: Code compiles, tests pass, and the actual behavior matches the intended change.
Complete working example
1---2description: Review all AI-generated changes before commit3---45Review all uncommitted changes in this project:671. List every modified and new file82. For each file, check:9 - All imports resolve to existing modules in package.json or src/10 - All async functions have error handling11 - No hardcoded secrets, URLs, or credentials12 - No console.log statements in production code13 - All functions have explicit TypeScript return types14 - No unused variables or dead code153. Check for cross-file issues:16 - Circular imports between modified files17 - Inconsistent naming between related files18 - Missing exports that other files depend on194. Rate each issue as High/Medium/Low severity205. Provide a one-line summary: PASS or NEEDS FIXES2122Use @git for the diff context.Common mistakes when reviewing Cursor-generated code
Why it's a problem: Accepting Cursor changes without reviewing the diff
How to avoid: Always review the diff in Cursor's panel before clicking Accept. Check red lines (deletions) first.
Why it's a problem: Only reviewing the files you asked Cursor to change
How to avoid: Use @git to review ALL uncommitted changes, not just the files you expected to change.
Why it's a problem: Trusting that AI-generated code compiles equals correct
How to avoid: Run tests and manually verify behavior after every Cursor session before committing.
Best practices
- Review every diff before accepting Cursor changes
- Use @git context to review all changes across files
- Check for deletions first (red lines) as they often indicate unintended removals
- Run the TypeScript compiler and test suite before committing
- Create a /review custom command for standardized AI code review
- Enable BugBot for automated review on feature branches
- Keep commits small and review after each Cursor task, not after multiple tasks
Still stuck?
Copy one of these prompts to get a personalized, step-by-step explanation.
Create a code review checklist specifically for AI-generated code. Include checks for: hallucinated imports, missing error handling, hardcoded secrets, unused variables, incorrect types, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS), and logic errors. Format as a markdown checklist.
In Cursor Chat (Cmd+L): @git Review all uncommitted changes. Check for: missing error handling, hardcoded values, hallucinated imports, security issues, and unused code. Rate each issue High/Medium/Low. Provide a PASS/NEEDS FIXES verdict.
Frequently asked questions
How long should I spend reviewing AI-generated code?
At minimum 30 seconds per file for a diff scan. For security-sensitive code (auth, payments, data access), spend 2-5 minutes per file. The review time should be proportional to the risk.
Can Cursor review its own code?
Yes. Using @git in Ask mode to review changes works surprisingly well. Cursor catches issues like missing error handling and hallucinated imports in its own output.
Should I review AI code differently than human code?
Yes. AI code is more likely to have: hallucinated imports, removed existing logic, hardcoded values, and missing edge case handling. Focus your review on these patterns.
What percentage of AI-generated code needs changes?
In practice, about 20-30% of Cursor-generated code needs minor adjustments. Major issues occur in roughly 5-10% of generations. The review workflow catches both.
Is there a way to automate the review?
BugBot provides automated review on branches. You can also create a .cursor/commands/review.md custom command that runs a standardized review prompt with one slash command.
Talk to an Expert
Our team has built 600+ apps. Get personalized help with your project.
Book a free consultation