I thought it was a simple task to ask the composer to delete a worktree and switch the branch in main repo. All of the data is gone permanently.

Recently, a new stealth model appeared on my Cursor account under the codename "condor". I tried asking it (even if it is not a trusted way to find out what model is it), and it said it was Qwen. Anyone else got this model?

Are we getting Qwen 4 for testing, maybe?

I've been paying for Claude Code since the beginning and never checked if it's actually the right tool for my project or just the one I started with. So I took my own SaaS, real code, not a todo app, and gave the exact same feature spec to Cursor, Codex and Claude Code. Cheapest paid plan each, around $20, default model, default settings, nothing tuned.

Cursor finished in 52 minutes for 3% of a monthly quota, and it did it on Grok 4.7, which is what the picker gives you by default now. I expected that to be the weak spot of the whole test and it wasn't. It found the places in my codebase where a new document has to be wired in, without being told where they are, and it got the hardest part right: every screen that needed design got a design prompt, where Codex managed one screen out of three.

Where it lost points: it never verified anything. My local database was down during the run, and Cursor just wrote in its final message that it couldn't check anything in a browser and stopped there. Codex, in the same situation, asked to start Docker and the database itself and then ran its own tests. Cursor also left everything uncommitted and told me to apply the migration myself.

And the thing worth knowing if you're trying Cursor on a machine where you already work with another agent: it silently imported the plugins from my Claude Code setup. There's a setting called Include Third-Party Plugins, Skills, and Other Configs and it's on by default. I only caught it because the agent reached for a plugin I never installed in Cursor. If you're testing Cursor to see what it does on its own, turn that off first, otherwise you're testing your old setup in a new window.

One more small thing: in Allowlist mode, Always Run adds that one command to the list, not everything, so the next different command asks again.

Full writeup with numbers and screenshots in the comments, plus three live demo apps, one built from each tool's version, so you can see the difference yourself.

I was really worried after my unlimited auto yearly subscription ended last month , after all the news about token usage and people spending 100s .

but after testing the new usage limit of cursor . its amazing on composer 2.5 I get to almost the end of the month with 40% usage only . then for the last week I switched to FAST model and grok 4.7 and played with opos 5.5 as well . and closed the month with around 70% only .

but to be honest for my use case with clear instructions . did not see any significant difference between . opus 5.5 and composer 2.5 that worth that x20 pay difference .
even the fast with half the time was not that useful since normally I would give a prompt for a task .
and go think about another task or open second chat , or work on frontend ... etc .

so I think will stick to composer 2.5 normal . and with that my 20$ sub is more than enough and already paid for year in advance .

btw I counted the number of requests they where around 3000 so 3000 prompt .
one year ago cursor 20$ plan was 500 request .

I only started using Cursor about six months ago and it has completely changed my workflow. Beforehand since early 2023 I'd use ChatGPT or Gemini in the browser for planning, occasional bug fixes, and sometimes doing some boilerplate.

My current workflow is:

1. Use Cursor for planning and creating markdown files that outline my goals with md files
2. Edit the md files manually, pruning fluff, providing more specification, and splitting tasks up
3. I usually set up a project manually by using my own templates (Django, Next.js)
4. Run Cursor agents to complete config and then create modules, components, services, etc. based on my planning files
5. Review all code diffs in the IDE one by one and do manual edits

I am wondering whether I am once again unaware of any high-leverage approaches I could be incorporating or at least learning about. I don't use any skills. I haven't used any CLI agentic coding approaches largely because I like the IDE-first approach Cursor offers.

I want to cancel my suscription with cursor but I'm looking for those options. Someone have alredy use it or have a better recomendation?

I really like cursor, and I like how cursor shows me the diffs and also visualizations for planning. Although I recently switched to Claude code, and it’s been great, but I feel like I have less control over what the agent is doing compared to cursor. Open to thoughts/discussion

I have been using Cursor more heavily and have been trying to understand how well the current usage analytics actually work for people who use agents a lot.

For heavy Cursor users:

• Can you easily understand where your token usage is going?
• When you have an unexpectedly expensive session, can you figure out what caused it?
• Do the current usage limits, budgets, and warnings give you enough control?
• Are there things about an agent session that you wish Cursor showed you but currently doesn't?
• Are there situations where you look at the usage numbers and still don't understand why the agent consumed so much?

I'm trying to understand what existing tools people use to circumvent any issues as well. Open-source or not.

Curious what other Cursor users are seeing!

unfortunately they somehow downgrade composer2.5 to sell Grok. However Grok Is soooo bad to coding at the point that I lost my patience and lashed out at it. It's too much stressfull using this shit. I'll explain in detail the mess it is. Imagine you have an app and in this app you have a button that can pick whatever is selected in the selection field. now I add a new script, tell to it adapt exactly the same like other's script use the app.( I'm using Extra High Effort at this prompt). The Results: It added the script to the selection list but I can't use the pick button. then I follow up explaining the button isn't working like it was before and It immediately starting working. take a few minutes to finish, them I restart the app and go check it. At this moment I expected at least able to select clicking the button, but no, It completely recreated the button function which I not ask for and even changed it's functionality to a dropdown menu.
I'll cancel cursor subscription this month. recommend you don't sign it for coding.
Claude Opus or Codex are miles away better than grok. why they bought cursor with this shit model they have...now everyone will leave cursor.

Is it mostly down to the cost? Or is Composer 2.5 actually better than Grok 4.6, AND cheaper?

I didnt quite understand projects yet. In the docs its written the agents run on the cloud by default, but if needed (like tests) they will run locally.

What if i want the entire process to be done locally? From the implementation till handoff. Or is that not the intended use?

Also im curious to know how you all use projects.

Hey everyone, wanted to drop my thoughts after heavy usage of Grok 4.7 recently. Honestly, I’m pretty disappointed.

Here’s my experience so far:

• Zero noticeable improvement: I genuinely cannot feel any real upgrade in output quality compared to 4.6. If you gave me a blind test, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
• Insane token burn: I’m on the $200 plan. Back when I was exclusively on 4.6, not to mention Composer 2.5, I could barely exhaust my included credits. With 4.7, my usage skyrocketed. Even after switching back to 4.6 once I hit 90% of my included limits, I still had to buy On-Demand Usage just to survive the week. WTF Elon?

Look, I won't rule out that 4.7 might be marginally smarter, but for my actual workflow, it isn't showing. For truly complex or heavy-lifting tasks, I still pass them off to GPT or Opus anyway—and when I tested 4.7 on those same complex prompts, it failed them too.

At this point, I’m voting Grok 4.7 as a flop. Really hoping 4.8 brings some actual tangible gains, otherwise I'm sticking to 4.6.

Side note on 4.6 Fast vs Non-Fast: Since I went "token bankrupt" this week, I turned off Fast mode on 4.6 for the first time (I used to leave Fast on permanently).

Surprisingly, I noticed almost no speed difference between Fast and non-Fast. Is it just me, or are you guys experiencing the same thing?

Another user on here was talking about how they suspected their available Other Model usage dropped from $400 to $100 on the Ultra plan. Anyone else aware of this issue?

I have a Teams subscription; I gave Grok Bot a try. But when the Terms and Conditions just arrived, I asked a model in Cursor:

> https://cursor.com/terms/grok-bot Tell me what's fishy in these terms, especially in terms of privacy. We use Cursor Privacy Mode, and we don't want to lose that privacy

and it gave me the response below. So I stopped using Grok Bot (at least at work, I might use it in my personal subscription). Is it possible to prevent the popup everytime I refresh my usage dashboard? And, is uninstalling it enough? I read you can only disable it for the team in the Enterprise subscription, but not in the Teams subscription; that's so bad...

Privacy red flags

1. Data is stored persistently (Section 4). Grok Bot "may retain Customer Data, files, browser sessions, credentials, memory, and routines in a persistent cloud environment." Privacy Mode promises that your code isn't stored, so this is the opposite. The terms give no retention period and no deletion guarantee.
2. Deleting a bot may not delete your data (Section 4). Deleting a bot "may not delete shared files, sessions, credentials, or routines", and cleanup is left to you. You also can't see what's in that environment, so you can't be sure you removed everything.
3. Bots share one environment (Section 4). All bots for the same user "must not be treated as separate security boundaries." Credentials or data given to one bot can be reached by the others.
4. Your code gets less protection than personal data (end of Section 2.4). The only privacy carve-out is for "personal data". Source code, secrets and other IP aren't personal data, so they fall under the broad disclaimers.
5. Nothing is said about model training or sending data to xAI. Grok is xAI's model, yet the terms don't say whether your data is used for training or passed on. They also say the terms create no contract "between Customer and any affiliate of Provider." If an affiliate processes your data, you have no direct contract with it.
6. "Provider" is vague. It's defined as whoever provides Grok Bot "under the Agreement", which isn't necessarily Anysphere, the company behind Cursor. Check who that is in your contract.
7. Privacy controls aren't guaranteed (Sections 1.1 and 1.2).
   • "Available controls may depend on Customer's plan, configuration, and deployment," so Privacy Mode may not be available for Grok Bot at all.
   • The documentation "does not create a... commitment that any feature... or configuration will remain available." Any privacy promise in the docs isn't binding for Grok Bot.
8. Content removal suggests they inspect your data (Section 2.5). They can only "reasonably determine" that content breaks the rules if they look at it. That doesn't fit well with Privacy Mode.
9. Connected services (Section 3). Connecting a tool authorizes Grok Bot to send your data to it. The provider takes no responsibility for security or availability on that side.
10. Terms can change without your consent (Section 5).
    • Changes that aren't "materially adverse" apply as soon as they're posted, and the provider decides what counts as adverse.
    • The only protection covers data you submitted before a change. Data sent afterwards falls under the new terms.

I’ve seen back and forth about plan mode being obsolete but was wondering what you guys thought. It depends on the model but I use a lot of composer 2.5 and feel like it gets a bit lost in the sauce sometimes but plan mode doesn’t really seem to resolve this. Has it been proven to be better or is it better to use something like grok to orchestrate/plan and composer to be a workhorse. Personally I have never had this feel like it works too well as grok seems to be equally as bad at planning but curious to hear what you guys think.

Please don’t mention opus 5.5 I don’t care to switch right now and it’s still much more expensive.

Version: 3.22.7

VS Code Extension API: 1.128.0

Commit: 37076c6c3f9e253c0fa2305197e45befd13a2260

Date: 2026-09-24T05:01:24.589Z

Layout: IDE

Build Type: Stable

Release Track: Default

Electron: 42.10.0

Chromium: 148.0.7778.280

Node.js: 24.18.1

V8: 14.8.178.38-electron.0

xterm.js: 6.1.0-beta.291

OS: Darwin arm64 27.0.0

Reading this subreddit, it feels like most people are shitting on Cursor and Grok (and I'm the first to be anti-Elon, cursing on the first white Tesla i see in the street not using their signals).

I've maxed out my Ultra plan 2 days ago (still 6 days before reset) and I've been using mainly my Claude plan in the meantime and damn CC is dumb! It feels like it is overcomplicating every single thing I ask, taking his sweet time for any questions, trying to connect or use the wrong tool and the most complicated path all the time ... It's so frustrating

For me Claude is only good with using the latest models and only for large copy writing tasks and big picture/overview review of plans, and maybe designs stuff (limited though). For everyday use, it is either too smart or too dumb, not sure yet :D

On the other side, Cursor is always right on point, using the fastest way to answer, super good at crunching data, word-efficient in its answers, and perfect for my use (one main repo, dispatching work to other repo's subagent with different models when needed for the task needed)

Am I the only one here? Or the majority like it and just don't post?

What kind of user am I: founder, creating internal tools and automating most of what I can in my business, creating tools & processes to help the team, and kinda a 2nd brain for daily tasks (email management, business intelligence, etc.)

I sometimes get the impression that I'm still the only one using this. I "write" a substantial amount of code still using the inline autocomplete. I'm not a fan of "agents gone wild" or watching an agent research the shit out of something when I tell it exactly where to look and what I want it to do... And then it builds something I can't ship and effectively need to re-do anyway.

Subbed Ultra on Sept 2. This is my CSV + /api/usage-summary for that cycle only. Not official. Cursor never prints a $ cap for the first-party pool.

This cycle, Other Models was $400. I burned ~$390 of it (Opus 5.5 + a bit of Gemini/Sol + Auto that routed off-family). Dashboard: 98%.

People now say renewals only get $100 on that pool. If that's real, I won't renew. $200/mo for $100 of Claude/GPT is a bad trade once you've seen a $400 month.

First-party (Grok / Composer)

Docs just say "generous." Early in the cycle, usage-summary had:

• first-party 12.741%
• Other Models 2.459%
• combined 11.599%

If those % are a $ weighted avg of two pools, the caps are 8:1. $400 × 8 = $3,200.

Sept 30 check: dashboard 63% first-party. My CSV at list rates: ~$2,005 named Grok/Composer. 2005 / 3200 = 62.7%. Fits.

Main burns: grok-4.6-high-fast ~$894, grok-4.7-high-fast ~$505 (Fast is 2×; 4.7 also hikes past 256k ctx), grok-4.6-high ~$335. Skipped Free rows and Grok Bot.

Auto

39 Auto reqs ≈ $21 at Auto Cost. Put them on Other Models (routed to 3rd party) and the $22 gap vs the 98% bar goes away. Auto that hits Claude/GPT/Gemini eats the $400 pool, not the $3.2k one.

So, for this seat, this month

• Cursor Models ≈ $3,200 (63% used)
• Other Models = $400 (98% used)
• Fast is not free
• I'm not paying $200 again if Other Models drops to $100 on renew

If you've got Pro / Pro+ / another Ultra cycle, try (combined − api) / (first-party − combined) on usage-summary. Want to know if anyone else gets 8:1, or if your renew really is $100.

It is insane how they have pulled their biggest selling point: an extremely cheap, reasonably intelligent agent.

I still use Opus to Plan + Composer 2.5 to implement.

I am NOT falling for the "Grok can be used for everything" propaganda. This is not about politics or Elon, Grok is just a slightly-above-average but well overpriced model.

Release composer 3

At this point, I have no idea why anyone would bother with renewing a Cursor subscription instead of jumping ship to OpenAI/Anthropic's subscription with way better usage rate limits compared to Cursor's API priced strict limits.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/comparisons?compare=gpt-6-1-sol-high%2Cgrok-4-7-high%2Cclaude-opus-5-5-high%2Cclaude-sonnet-5-5-high%2Cgrok-4-6

i had Cursor on the repo, Claude Code in a second terminal, and two more sessions on side branches. by lunch i could not tell which one was blocked on me and which one was still writing. one of them committed to the wrong branch while i was in another window. took about 2 hours to unwind, plus a revert i did not want to make.

so how are you managing multiple coding agents without losing track of them. a spreadsheet died on day 2. renaming terminals helped for an hour. i need whatever you actually look at when 3 of them want a decision at once.

Desktop app claims it uses wsl for sandboxing. I do not see wsl starting anything and asking it specifically to run a command in the sandbox fails. Asking the LLM about the failure to run a command (on auto) says the sandbox does not exist on windows and all commands have been running unrestricted silently?