Human Review Rubric for AI Review
AI review helps humans ask better questions.
Use the right surface
After this you can pick Cursor Review for the right job and define done.
Done means you can define what AI may block, what it may comment on and what humans still own.
AI review adds signal in the PR flow, but the human still owns the merge.
Use Cursor Review when a team needs to place AI review in its PR process without creating false authority. 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., Cursor Review, PR Inbox, PR Page, Merge Queue and gt CLI
- Source
- BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs. and Cursor Review docs
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 define what AI may block, what it may comment on and what humans still own.
Self-check
QWhen should you reach for Cursor Review?
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.
- 1Separate blocking issues from advisory comments.
- 2Use AI review to focus human attention on high-risk hunks.
- 3Require humans to resolve product judgment, architecture and ownership questions.
- 4Record unresolved AI findings intentionally.
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.
Humans still own correctness and merge decision.
Takeaway. Stop when you have proof: The team knows which findings block..
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?