Cmd-K for surgical edits, Cmd-L for chat with file context, Composer (agent mode) for multi-file work. The whole loop happens where you read code, so the review-as-you-write cadence is faster than CLI agents.
Cursor (IDE-first)
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, and the editor stays the source of truth. CodeRabbit reviews the PR exactly the same as the recommended stack.
Cursor's own Bugbot covers some of the same ground but only inside the editor. CodeRabbit lives on the PR, where teammates see it. Keep CodeRabbit for the PR review even if Bugbot is on inside Cursor.
- cursorFree Hobby
- coderabbitFree (OSS)
- cursor$20 Pro
- coderabbit$12/dev
- cursor$200 (5x $40 Business)
- coderabbit$60 (5 devs)
- 1Plan in Cursor's chat panelCursor
Cmd-L. Add the ticket and the most-relevant 2 to 3 files via @-mentions. Get the plan there; you stay in the editor.
Prompt · Scope a change inside Cursor (Cmd-L)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. - 2Implement with ComposerCursor
Switch to agent mode (Composer). Hand it the plan + the files. Cursor proposes a multi-file diff inline; accept or reject hunks visually.
- 3Inline iterate with Cmd-KCursor
For tight edits inside one file, skip the agent — Cmd-K is faster. The editor stays in flow.
- 4Open the PRCodeRabbit
Push the branch. CodeRabbit posts its review the same way it does for the other variants.
- 5Patch findings inlineCursor
Pull the CodeRabbit comment into Cursor's chat panel via the GitHub side-panel integration; let Composer turn it 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.
Bugbot lives in the IDE; CodeRabbit lives on the PR. Don't disable CodeRabbit because Bugbot caught something — they reach different audiences (you vs your reviewer).