Bugbot Rules, Incremental Review and Effort
Review quality comes from the right rules and the right effort level.
Use the right surface
After this you can pick Bugbot configuration for the right job and define done.
Done means you can tune BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs. review without teaching it bad blocking habits.
AI review adds signal in the PR flow, but the human still owns the merge.
Use BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs. configuration when Bugbot is too noisy, too shallow or missing repo-specific concerns. 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
- BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs. settings, .cursor/BUGBOT.md, effort levels and rule analytics
- Source
- BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs. docs, May 2026 billing update and June 2026 Bugbot changelog
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 tune BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs. review without teaching it bad blocking habits.
Self-check
QWhen should you reach for BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs. configuration?
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.
- 1Name the finding pattern you want BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs. to catch or ignore.
- 2Place the rule at the narrowest effective scope.
- 3Choose effort level based on PR risk, cost and whether only new changes should be reviewed.
- 4Review analytics or recent findings to tune noise.
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.
Effort level matches PR risk.
Takeaway. Stop when you have proof: Rules map to real repository failure modes..
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?