Cursor: When to Use the AI‑First Editor (And When Not To)
Cursor makes vibe‑coding feel natural: you explain what the user should see or be able to do and the editor proposes real changes across files. For non‑technical founders, this shortens the distance between an idea and a working app, especially when paired with AI app generation tools like Claude Code, Lovable, Bolt.new, Replit, or Vercel v0. Used well, Cursor turns intent into progress. Used carelessly, it can create churn and rework.
Where Cursor shines
Cursor excels at iterative building. You can keep a conversation open, ask for a small improvement, see the result, and ask for the next change. It’s especially strong for:
- Rapid MVPs that need common features (onboarding, simple dashboards, forms)
- Polishing existing screens without rewriting from scratch
- Explaining code and drafting tests once you state the journey clearly
These strengths make Cursor a good fit for AI‑first development where speed and learning matter more than perfect structure on day one.
Where Cursor struggles (and how to hedge)
Complex changes that touch many moving parts at once can drift. If you ask for “clean up the whole auth flow,” Cursor may update several screens and routes, producing side effects. Instead, ask for one outcome at a time and name what must remain unchanged. When a change touches money, identity, or admin actions, slow down and review.
Cursor also inherits your project’s clarity. If names are vague or screens duplicate logic, changes become harder to predict. A little tidying—shared components for repeated screens, clearer names for actions—goes a long way.
A simple working rhythm in Cursor
Treat each prompt like a micro‑ticket. State a single user outcome, list the screen in scope, and call out areas that are off‑limits. After Cursor lands a change, click through the app and note what still feels wrong. Ask for the next small improvement. This rhythm keeps momentum high and regressions low.
- One outcome per prompt (“After sign‑up, land on the dashboard with a welcome banner.”)
- One change at a time (small, reviewable diffs over sweeping edits)
- One check after each change (sign‑up, sign‑in, and a simple save)
Cursor vs Copilot, Claude Code, and others
GitHub Copilot is great at line‑by‑line suggestions while you type; it shines when you already know the shape of a function. Claude Code feels more like a command‑line partner for broader refactors and technical chores. Cursor sits between them: it can update several files while keeping you inside a familiar editor, which makes it comfortable for everyday work.
No‑code founders often pair Cursor with full app generators like Lovable or Bolt.new for a first pass, then use Cursor for targeted edits and polish. This hybrid model combines speed with control.
Outcome‑first prompts that land better
- “On the Verify Email screen, add a ‘Resend code’ link. Do not change copy or layout on other auth screens.”
- “Keep Dashboard as the home page. Add a /pricing route with three plans and keep navigation order.”
- “After saving on Edit Profile, show a success message and stay on the page.”
These requests give Cursor a clear target and reduce unintended changes.
When to ask for help
If a series of Cursor edits left your product unstable—broken sign‑in, pages that behave differently, or features that regress as you add others—bring in a steady hand. Spin by fryga can step into vibe‑coded and no‑code projects to stabilize the core flows so you can ship confidently again.
Cursor is a strong ally for AI‑first development when you keep the scope small, measure progress by user outcomes, and protect the paths people rely on. Used this way, it helps you build working software quickly—and keeps you in control as you grow.