Agent Review Before You Accept Work
Use AI review as another signal, not as merge authority.
Use the right surface
After this you can pick Agent review for the right job and define done.
Done means you can use review feedback to improve the patch without outsourcing judgment.
AI review adds signal in the PR flow, but the human still owns the merge.
Use Agent review when Agent has produced a diff and you want another pass before shipping. 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
- Agent review or review prompts over the diff
- Source
- Agent review and agent best practices
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 use review feedback to improve the patch without outsourcing judgment.
Self-check
QWhen should you reach for Agent 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.
- 1Ask for risks against the actual diff, not a broad code critique.
- 2Focus review on bugs, missing tests, security and contract changes.
- 3Apply only findings you can reproduce or reason through.
- 4Run the verification command yourself after changes.
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.
False positives are dismissed with a reason.
Takeaway. Stop when you have proof: Review comments map to specific hunks..
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?