| My workflow for that kind of thing goes something like this (I use Sonnet 3.7 Thinking in Cursor): 1. 1st prompt is me describing what I want to build, what I know I want and any requirements or restrictions I'm aware of. Based on these requirements, ask a series of questions to produce a complete specification document. 2. Workshop the specification back and forward until I feel it's complete enough. 3. Ask the agent to implement the specification we came up with. 4. Tell the agent to implement Cursor Rules based on the specifications to ensure consistent implementation details in future LLM sessions. I'd say it's pretty good 80% of the time. You definitely still need to understand the problem domain and be able to validate the work that's been produced but assuming you had some architectural guidelines you should be able to follow the code easily. The Cursor Rules step makes all the difference in my experience. I picked most of this workflow up from here: https://ghuntley.com/stdlib/ Edit: A very helpful rule is to tell Cursor to always checkout a new branch based on the latest HEAD of master/main for all of it's work. |
Cursor w/ Claude has a habit of running away on tangents instead of solving just the one problem, then I need to reject its changes and even roll back to a previous version.
With a proper specification as guideline it might stay on track a bit better.