If you'd rather see the diff as you go than read a terminal log, Cursor is the answer. Cmd-K for inline edits, agent mode for multi-file changes, Bugbot reviews the PR. The editor stays the source of truth all the way through.
Cmd-K for surgical edits, Cmd-L for chat with file context, Composer (agent mode) for multi-file work, Bugbot for PR review on push. One tool for the whole loop.
Cmd-L. Add the ticket and the most-relevant 2 to 3 files via @-mentions. Get the plan there; you stay in the editor.
Plan a small, well-scoped PR for the change below. Don't write the code yet.
Ticket / problem:
"""
{{paste ticket}}
"""
I've @-mentioned the most relevant files. Use them as the source of truth for current behavior.
Output:
1. Restated problem in 2 sentences.
2. Files to touch + 1-line "why" each.
3. Smallest viable diff in 5 to 8 bullets.
4. Edge cases (3 to 5).
5. What I should NOT change.
Ask 1 to 2 clarifying questions if the ticket is genuinely ambiguous.Switch to agent mode (Composer). Hand it the plan + the files. Cursor proposes a multi-file diff inline; accept or reject hunks visually.
For tight edits inside one file, skip the agent — Cmd-K is faster. The editor stays in flow.
Push the branch. Bugbot posts its review on the PR automatically — same surface as a human reviewer, so teammates see the findings too.
Bring the Bugbot comments back into Cursor's chat panel; Composer turns them into a patch you can review hunk-by-hunk.
On UI work, the IDE-first loop won: changes are visual, the editor is where you naturally iterate. On backend refactors that span 10+ files, the team preferred Claude Code because Composer's hunk-by-hunk acceptance got tedious. Mixed-mode users tended to keep both subscriptions active.
On a 12-file diff, accepting hunks one at a time in the editor takes longer than reading a CLI agent's summary. Pick the right surface for the size of the change.
If your team also reviews from the GitHub web UI without Cursor open, Bugbot's comments are still visible (they post to the PR), but the inline IDE features are not. Make sure the PR-level review is the source of truth, not the in-editor markers.
