Surface Failure Map
Start every vague complaint by naming the surface.
Use the right surface
After this you can pick Troubleshooting for the right job and define done.
Done means you can convert the complaint into a single surface, reproduction and next check.
A good reliability workflow finds the first failed check before switching tools.
Use Troubleshooting when a user says Cursor is broken but the symptom is vague. 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
- Support-style triage across Cursor surfaces
- Source
- Agent troubleshooting, Tab troubleshooting and support architecture research
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 convert the complaint into a single surface, reproduction and next check.
Self-check
QWhen should you reach for Troubleshooting?
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.
- 1Ask what the user expected and what happened instead.
- 2Name the surface: Tab, Ask, Agent, CLI, Cloud, BugbotCursor's automated PR reviewer that posts inline findings and can push fix commits from isolated VMs., Browser or Admin.
- 3Collect mode, model, prompt, file, command and environment where relevant.
- 4Run the first check for that surface before escalating.
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.
Expected vs actual behavior is concrete.
Takeaway. Stop when you have proof: The issue has one primary surface..
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?