cursortechnicalAPP-018

The Cursor AI-Native Developer

#cursor#ai-coding#developer#llm#pair-programming#productivity

Aha Moment

“What was the moment this product clicked?” —

Identity

A software developer with 2–10 years of experience who switched to Cursor after a trial period and didn't go back. They've restructured how they code around the assumption that AI is in the loop. They write less boilerplate. They spend more time reviewing and directing than typing. They're faster on unfamiliar codebases than they've ever been. They're also developing opinions about when AI help hurts — about the kinds of errors that look right until they don't.

Intention

What are they trying to do? —

Outcome

What do they produce? —

Goals

→Move through unfamiliar codebases at a speed that would have been impossible before
→Use AI to handle the mechanical parts of coding so they can focus on the architectural decisions
→Trust the suggestions enough to accept them without a full re-read every time

Frustrations

—Suggestions that are confident and wrong — especially when they're wrong in subtle ways
—Context windows that don't understand the full codebase structure when that context would change the suggestion
—The cognitive overhead of deciding whether to accept, reject, or modify each suggestion
—The occasional regression to VS Code when Cursor does something they can't explain

Worldview

AI coding assistance is a skill, not just a feature — learning to use it well takes months
The developer who can direct AI well is 3x the developer who can't
Accepting a suggestion without understanding it is how you accumulate debt you can't explain

Scenario

They're onboarding to a new codebase — a 150k-line Python monolith they've never seen before. They have a bug to fix. In VS Code this would take 90 minutes of reading. In Cursor they're going to ask it to explain the relevant module first, then walk through the data flow, then suggest the fix. They'll read the suggestion carefully. They'll accept 80% of it. They'll rewrite the part that's wrong in a way Cursor helped them understand how to write.

Context

Uses Cursor as their primary IDE, replacing VS Code 3 months ago. Uses Claude and GPT-4 models depending on the task. Has keyboard shortcuts for Cmd+K and Cmd+L memorized as naturally as their old Vim bindings. Uses Cursor's codebase indexing for large repos. Works on Python and TypeScript primarily. Has a mental model of "when to prompt" vs. "when to just write" that they've built through trial and error. Has introduced Cursor to their team; adoption is split.

Impact

→Codebase-aware context that spans multiple files accurately reduces the
→wrong-suggestion rate on architecture-level changes
→Model switching that's invisible when the right model for the task is selected automatically
→removes the mental overhead of choosing
→Suggestion explanation mode that shows why a suggestion was made builds the
→"understand before accepting" habit rather than passive acceptance
→Team shared prompts that encode team-specific conventions reduce onboarding time
→for developers new to the repo

Composability Notes

Pairs with `github-primary-user` for the full AI-assisted development to PR review workflow. Contrast with `vscode-primary-user` to map the AI-extended vs. AI-native IDE philosophy gap. Use with `senior-engineer-skeptic` antagonist for realistic team conversations about AI coding tool adoption.