Cursor CLI

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Role and Positioning of Cursor CLI

  • Seen largely as a “Claude Code–style” terminal agent that frees Cursor from VS Code, letting people keep their own editors (JetBrains, Vim/Neovim, terminal-based setups).
  • Some think it offers nothing fundamentally better than Cursor’s in-IDE chat; others see it as a necessary move to compete in the fast-growing CLI/agent ecosystem alongside Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, opencode, and Crush.
  • A selling point is access to GPT‑5 inside a coding agent, though several note other tools can already route to multiple models (including GPT‑5) via gateways.

CLI vs IDE and Evolving Dev Workflows

  • Many commenters report preferring terminal agents over IDE sidebars: easier to script, run in the background, and integrate with git tools like lazygit/Magit.
  • Others remain IDE‑centric, citing the value of AI tab completion and tight editor integration; some feel terminal UX is still rough (poor feedback, lack of verbosity, no clear plan mode).
  • There’s a broader view that agents are redefining IDEs: UI should shift from “editing” to monitoring, reviewing, and safely rolling back agent changes.

Standards, Rules Files, and Configuration

  • Strong push to standardize on AGENT.md instead of vendor‑specific CLAUDE.md/GEMINI.md/etc. to avoid “prompt file lock‑in” and branding clutter.
  • Discussion around symlinks, multi-file agent configs, and shared guidelines that multiple agents can consume; some want a .agents/ directory rather than more files at repo root.
  • Cursor CLI is reported to support AGENT.md as well as its own rules format.

Security, Sandboxing, and Trust

  • Mixed views on safety of letting agents run commands/edit files: some see low practical risk with permission prompts; others argue this violates least-privilege and prefer VMs/sandboxes or read-only access.
  • Mention of emerging native sandbox support (e.g., Gemini CLI) and Cursor’s own option to run agents in a VM.

Business Model and Competition

  • Debate over whether independent tools like Cursor can survive when labs ship their own CLIs bundled with subscriptions.
  • One camp: UX and multi-model support will be the winning layer; models become commodities.
  • Opposing camp: model providers’ cost structure and training advantages mean third-party tools will struggle, especially with fixed-price plans and context limits.

Current Limitations and Gaps

  • Users note missing features vs Claude Code (hooks/plugins, rich MCP support, command shortcuts, plan modes).
  • Some find Cursor’s agent less predictable or polished; others report Claude Code looping or failing on real codebases and prefer Cursor’s behavior. Experiences are highly mixed.