Security Agents and Approval Agents
High-risk workflows need deeper review and human approval gates.
Use the right surface
After this you can pick Security and approval agents for the right job and define done.
Done means you can decide when an agent should recommend, when it should open a PR and when it must wait for approval.
Always-on agents need a clear trigger, identity, permission boundary and approval path.
Use Security and approval agents when automation touches security-sensitive code, infrastructure or policy decisions. Keep the boundary narrow.
Start small. Name the job, attach the context that proves the point and decide what evidence would make the output trustworthy.
Read the loop before touching the controls. The first beat frames the work, the second uses Cursor, the third checks the result and the fourth leaves a handoff someone else can inspect.
Interactive diagram. Tab through its regions; each focused region shows its detail in the panel below.
Run this loop in a real repo.
- Entry point
- Security Agents, Approval Agents, run modes, hooks and review policy
- Source
- Security Agents, Approval Agents and LLM safety controls
Use the source as the product reference.
Ask Cursor for an output you can inspect.
If the output cannot be checked, narrow the task before you continue.
A good run leaves a file, setting, screenshot, command result or written claim you can verify.
Takeaway. Done means you can decide when an agent should recommend, when it should open a PR and when it must wait for approval.
Self-check
QWhen should you reach for Security and approval agents?
Run it
After this you can do the task with clear scope and one proof point.
Treat this as a short practice loop, not a product tour. The task should be small enough that you can inspect the result without trusting the summary.
- 1Classify the risk of the operation.
- 2Use the security agent for deeper analysis where needed.
- 3Insert approval before irreversible or high-impact action.
- 4Record the finding, recommendation and human decision.
The exercise is complete only when the proof matches the requested outcome. If the proof is weak, reduce the scope or fix the context instead of adding more instructions.
Keep the task small enough to review.
Security findings include evidence and severity.
Takeaway. Stop when you have proof: High-risk actions require approval..
Self-check
QWhich habit makes this workflow safe to use on a real project?
Check it
After this you can find the first failed check before changing tools.
Verification decides the next move.
Interactive diagram. Tab through its regions; each focused region shows its detail in the panel below.
Pick a row to see what to look for.
Use the first failure signal as the next prompt. Broad retries usually make the run noisier; a narrow retry gives Cursor a concrete repair target.
No proof means more checking.
Use a real repo or admin setting. Save the prompt, context and proof.
Takeaway. If it fails, find the first failed check.
Self-check
QThe workflow failed. What is the best first move?