1 min lesson
Teaching trust-but-verify during enablement
Imagine this comes up at work: "During your demo, the agent produces code that looks reasonable but is subtly wrong. What do you do and why does it matter for this role?" Start with the practical move.
Step 1 of 2
Teaching trust-but-verify during enablement
- Make review non-negotiable: every Agent diff gets read before it's accepted, exactly as a human PR would.
- Normalize rejection. Show the team a wrong-but-plausible suggestion in a session and reject it out loud, so they learn rejection is the skill, not a failure of the tool.
- Connect model behavior to outcomes they care about: faster drafts only help if review load stays sane and incident risk doesn't creep up.
- Model behavior
- Output quality and fit to conventions
- Outcome the buyer tracks
- Review load and PR cycle time
- Model behavior
- Appropriate autonomy
- Outcome the buyer tracks
- Incident risk and rollback frequency
- Model behavior
- Good context and rules
- Outcome the buyer tracks
- Developer satisfaction and seat utilization
| Model behavior | Outcome the buyer tracks |
|---|---|
| Output quality and fit to conventions | Review load and PR cycle time |
| Appropriate autonomy | Incident risk and rollback frequency |
| Good context and rules | Developer satisfaction and seat utilization |
Tie every model conversation back to a metric the economic buyer already watches.
Interview move
When the demo agent produces something subtly wrong, don't hide it. Catch it, explain why it's wrong and reject it.
That moment proves the judgment Cursor screens for and is far more persuasive than a flawless rehearsed run that looks too good to be real.