# How to review Cursor-generated code

- Tool: Cursor
- Difficulty: Beginner
- Time required: 10-15 min
- Compatibility: Cursor Free+, Git-based projects
- Last updated: March 2026

## TL;DR

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.

## Before you start

- 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

### 1. 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.

```
// In Cursor's diff view, check for:
// 1. RED LINES: Code that was deleted but should not have been
//    - Existing error handling removed
//    - Comments or documentation stripped
//    - Working code replaced entirely
// 2. GREEN LINES: New code that looks suspicious
//    - Hardcoded values (URLs, credentials, magic numbers)
//    - Missing error handling (no try/catch on async)
//    - Imports from packages not in your package.json
//    - console.log statements left in production code
```

**Expected result:** A mental checklist for quickly scanning AI-generated diffs.

### 2. 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.

```
// Cursor Chat prompt (Cmd+L, Ask mode):
// @git Review all uncommitted changes. For each modified
// file, check for:
// 1. Missing error handling
// 2. Hardcoded values that should use config
// 3. Imports that reference non-existent modules
// 4. Security issues (SQL injection, XSS, exposed secrets)
// 5. Functions without return types
// 6. Dead code or unused imports
// Report issues by file with severity (High/Medium/Low).
```

**Expected result:** A structured review of all AI-generated changes with categorized issues.

### 3. 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.

```
---
description: Pre-commit review checklist
globs: ""
alwaysApply: false
---

## Pre-Commit Review Checklist for AI Code
Before committing, verify:

### Correctness
- [ ] All imports resolve to existing modules
- [ ] Return types match the function contract
- [ ] Edge cases handled (null, empty array, zero)
- [ ] Async functions have try/catch or .catch()

### Security
- [ ] No hardcoded secrets, URLs, or API keys
- [ ] SQL queries use parameterized statements
- [ ] User input is validated/sanitized
- [ ] No eval() or innerHTML with user data

### Quality
- [ ] No console.log in production code
- [ ] No unused variables or imports
- [ ] Function names match their behavior
- [ ] Comments are accurate (not stale)
```

**Expected result:** A reusable checklist that standardizes code review for AI-generated output.

### 4. 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.

```
// BugBot automatically reviews when you push to a branch.
// To manually trigger a review in Cursor:
// 1. Commit your changes to a feature branch
// 2. Push to remote: git push origin feature-branch
// 3. BugBot scans the diff against main
// 4. Issues appear with confidence ratings
// 5. Click 'Fix in Cursor' for one-click fixes
//
// BugBot Autofix has a 35%+ merge rate — it can
// fix many issues automatically.
```

**Expected result:** Automated AI review catching issues before human PR review.

### 5. 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.

```
// Quick sanity checks:
// 1. Does the code compile? npx tsc --noEmit
// 2. Do tests pass? npm test
// 3. Does it work in the browser/API?
// 4. Does the git diff look reasonable for the task?
//    (small task = small diff, big diff = suspicious)

// If the diff is unexpectedly large:
// Cursor Chat: @git Why are there changes in 15 files
// when I only asked to update the UserProfile component?
// List all files that changed and explain each change.
```

**Expected result:** Code compiles, tests pass, and the actual behavior matches the intended change.

## Complete code example

File: `.cursor/commands/review.md`

```markdown
---
description: Review all AI-generated changes before commit
---

Review all uncommitted changes in this project:

1. List every modified and new file
2. For each file, check:
   - All imports resolve to existing modules in package.json or src/
   - All async functions have error handling
   - No hardcoded secrets, URLs, or credentials
   - No console.log statements in production code
   - All functions have explicit TypeScript return types
   - No unused variables or dead code
3. Check for cross-file issues:
   - Circular imports between modified files
   - Inconsistent naming between related files
   - Missing exports that other files depend on
4. Rate each issue as High/Medium/Low severity
5. Provide a one-line summary: PASS or NEEDS FIXES

Use @git for the diff context.
```

## Common mistakes

- **Accepting Cursor changes without reviewing the diff** — Cursor can modify files you did not ask it to touch, remove existing error handling, or introduce security vulnerabilities. Fix: Always review the diff in Cursor's panel before clicking Accept. Check red lines (deletions) first.
- **Only reviewing the files you asked Cursor to change** — Composer Agent mode can modify related files without being asked, especially imports, exports, and type definitions. Fix: Use @git to review ALL uncommitted changes, not just the files you expected to change.
- **Trusting that AI-generated code compiles equals correct** — Code can compile perfectly but contain logic errors, incomplete implementations, or security vulnerabilities that only show up at runtime. Fix: 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

## 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.

---

Source: https://www.rapidevelopers.com/cursor-tutorial/how-to-review-cursor-ai-s-code-output-quickly-in-a-pr-workflow-to-accept-or-reject-suggestions
© RapidDev — https://www.rapidevelopers.com/cursor-tutorial/how-to-review-cursor-ai-s-code-output-quickly-in-a-pr-workflow-to-accept-or-reject-suggestions