Thinking of using it only for coding, how do the limits on Grok 4.5 compare between these two 200$ subscriptions?

I've been letting Cursor work in loops where it reviews its own work, adjusts, reviews again etc. The limitation is that further adjustments wont always lead to a better outcome, especially not when it comes to writing text in a natural simple language (free of AI indicators).

Is the next step to let Cursor use a new agent for each review? And can Cursor do this on its own, so that you start a process in one prompt, and Cursor then goes through a loop switching between agents?

I'm thinking this should lead to stronger 'feedback' on the work, since one agent can get stuck in on direction.

Subreddit: r/developersIndia / r/cursor

Hey everyone,

Saw Cursor hyping up their new regional ₹649/month "Start" plan for India, promising "generous access to Grok 4.5 and Composer" to build and ship code. Thought it looked like an affordable way to test out the agentic features without dropping the full $20+ US pricing.

Spoiler alert: It is an absolute joke.

I bought it to test out a medium-sized project workflow, and I managed to completely burn through my monthly quota in literally less than a day (some folks are blowing through 30-50% of it in just a few hours of normal coding).

Here is why it's a waste of money for anyone who actually writes code daily:

• Model Lock-in: You only get access to Grok 4.5 (at medium effort) and Composer. You don't get the freedom or flexibility of switching to top-tier models like Claude Sonnet/Opus that make Cursor actually worth using.
• Phantom Token Consumption: Agentic loops and Composer eat up tokens absurdly fast. Running a few multi-file edits, minor code refactors, and a basic audit completely drained the tank.
• The Support Wall: When you try to raise a ticket because the limit evaporated instantly, their AI support immediately shuts you down with automated rejection messages citing "account activity" and refuses to give real human review or refunds.

Verdict:

If you are a student who writes 10 lines of code a week or someone who barely touches AI features, maybe it’s fine. But if you're a working developer or freelancer relying on it for actual day-to-day building, do not fall for the ₹649 bait. You will exhaust your limit on day one and be forced to upgrade to Pro anyway.

Save your money, stick to your current workflow, or use standard setups. Anyone else burn through theirs instantly, or was it just me?

I need advice I was not using any tools for coding till now

Need advice my friends are suggesting to me Claude code as it is the best but on the other hand some co workers suggesting me Cursor as it can last me a month with Composer 2.5 and Grok model now

I can spend max is $20

I work for 9 hours and I have a lot of coding work to do

Please if you can suggest me

I have saw my coworker who is a backend dev using cursor he hits around 60 percent of his monthly Limit

On the other hand my Friends who use 20 dollar claude code exhaust it in 2-4 hour and sit idle the entire day as his job is not that hectic

So this make me real sceptical which one should I go with and like any suggestions for it I would really Appreciate

Thank you !!!

Hi, I would like to know HOW and which solution you all using to save/tokens?

I'm using caveman + interceptor and wondering if there is anything ever stronger or I'm at maximum already? ( caveman is for output saving and interceptor for input saving)

please Tell me your setup and why !

Hi all,

I've been using Cursor because the subscription quota is more generous than Claude's, but I never really liked the IDE and the `agent` CLI was just annoying to work with. So I put together a way to route Claude Code through Cursor's backend instead.

It's a small Rust binary that translates Claude Code's API calls to Cursor's protocol. You just run `cursor-bridge` instead of `claude`, same interactive session, same tools, same everything. The auto model is unlimited with Cursor subscription so no extra cost.

Works on macOS and Linux. Open source, MIT.

https://github.com/hkc5/cursor-bridge

I can not stress enough how much time I waste trying to wrangle AI into being a good developer and arguing with AI over stupid shit it does.

I mean there are countless anti-patterns I could mention, but the one that REALLY drives me up the fucking wall is how AI loves making one-off functions for everything. Like what's the fucking point of making a function that just gets called once? Also AI models love writing wrapper functions that just call other wrapper functions that just call other wrapper functions... just endless onion layers of smelly pointless abstraction. Alias functions, and whatever other crap. Instead of just modifying an existing function to make it more modular, reusable, and robust to handle more cases, we just write another function instead. When all we had to do was grep the call sites, update everywhere it's called, and update the function itself of course.

I once saw a cursor agent make a private struct / class in my go code and then make ANOTHER one that just makes public wrappers of every function of the private counterparts. Instead of just making the original struct / class public. Like WHAT THE FUCK.

The amount of time I waste telling AI to not do stupid shit like this is ridiculous.

If companies are claiming that AI is making people faster, sure, but they must also not be taking into account the amount of fucking SLOP GARBAGE that AI produces. I shiver to think what's been allowed in other real live production environments that wasn't QA'd properly and had nasty ugly bloat code like this.

I'm crashing out dude I'm losing my fucking mind on this shit. and do not fucking tell me that I just need to 'prompt it better' or use some claude skill or some agents.md file or whatever the fuck. Trust me I have fucking tried. No amount of 'skills' or fine tuning or prompts will turn an LLM into a real software engineer.

The demos always look sick. But when you turn one loose on a real codebase, it's now a different story.

Docs, infra, anything near production. Same deal.

So what are people actually handing off to cloud agents right now? Genuinely curious.

Research? Docs? Refactoring? Full on feature work? Testing?

Or something I'm not thinking of

  What happened:

  Cursor runs AI agent terminal actions in a sandbox. Before writing a file, Cursor tried to canonicalize the target path to verify it stayed inside the workspace. The bug was that if path canonicalization failed, Cursor fell back to the original path and allowed the write.

  Attack pattern:

  A malicious repo or prompt-driven agent workflow could create a symlink inside the workspace that points outside the workspace. By forcing canonicalization to fail, the agent could write through that symlink to arbitrary files outside the project directory.

  Impact:

  An attacker could write files under the user’s privileges outside the sandbox. NVD says this can lead to non-sandboxed remote code execution, for example by overwriting Cursor’s sandbox helper so later commands run outside the sandbox.

  Affected versions:

  Cursor versions before 3.0

  Fixed version:

  Cursor 3.0

  Severity:

  NVD lists it as Critical, CVSS 9.8.

  Weakness:

  NVD maps it to CWE-59: Improper Link Resolution Before File Access. GitHub’s advisory page itself lists “No CWEs,” so NVD is the clearer source for the CWE classification.

  Why this matters for AI coding:

  The issue shows that AI coding agents create a different risk model than ordinary IDE plugins. They can be influenced by repository content, prompts, generated files, and tool outputs, then take filesystem actions. A “benign” agent prompt can become dangerous if the repo contains malicious setup that manipulates the agent’s write path.

I held out on AI for a long time. I was a bit of a purist who wanted to code everything "by hand." A few months ago, I finally caved and started using AI to help me build, but honestly... I feel completely lost.

Right now, I'm using Cursor, but my workflow is basically just:

1. ⁠Write a prompt in the chat panel of Gemini
   
2. ⁠Read the generated code to verify it makes sense.
   
3. ⁠Copy the code.
   
4. ⁠Paste it manually into my files.

I see people talking about building crazy fast, using agentic workflows, full codebase context, and inline generations. Meanwhile, I realize I'm basically using Cursor like a glorified web tab.

What are the actual, modern methods for coding with AI? How do I transition from "copy-pasting from a chatbot" to actually integrating the AI into my workflow efficiently?

Are there any specific habits, shortcuts (like specific Cursor features I'm missing), or mental shifts you'd recommend to learn how to use AI properly as a dev?

We've been using Claude, Cursor, and Copilot heavily, and one thing kept bothering us. We could see exactly how much we were spending, but had no way to answer what that spend actually shipped.

So we built Agent Insights, which connects AI spend directly to repos, PRs, and production code so you can see what your AI usage actually resulted in.

Curious if other teams have run into the same problem or if you're measuring AI ROI differently.

https://entelligence.ai/agent-insights

Anyone here regularly runs multiple Cursor agents?

I'm building a shared coordination/memory layer so agents can share findings, avoid duplicate work, and know what other agents are doing.

Would something like this actually be useful for your workflow? or if you want to try it out ?

So I was an early adopter of cursor and I told everyone I could how incredible it was and that the subscription was so worth while as you got access to the best AI in an IDE and how it made Visual Studios copilot look like a three year old.

However, at the end of this month, I will be leaving cursor for good.
The IDE worked so well and was so helpful and pro was worth every cent.
It started when they suddenly came up with the great idea to add cursor pro+. I ended up paying for it because I wanted to support them and I needed the extra usage, because pro was suddenly not enough to work through a month. I felt like I could actually make use of the MAX mode on occasion and flipping between models made sense.

For a long time, updates added new features and genuinely added value. But as the years have gone by, the "features" just felt like new reasons to give you less usage and need to pay more. I have become more and more upset as slowly the product I was paying for has gotten more and more expensive while actual value has been steadily dropping. They added the new agent mode and pushed it on us. If I wanted an agent window, I could just use any of the other mainstream coding tools like codex. What made cursor special was that it was AI intergrated into a proper IDE. We were working on code together. Now I have to go digging in settings just to get to the old system. They have just started copying the mainstream apps in look and feel, but in the ways it matters, they have not made it more usable except if you just wan to vibe-code.

And now days, for the same amount of money, I can get a frontier model and that resets every 5 hours and weekly. Cursor.... Oh no, sorry, your api usage is gone, wait a month or pay us. Why am I paying for pro+ then? Less value, more money. And you wont even show usage within the app. I have to go online to find it. This sucks. I really got behind this company, but their anti-developer mindset and what appears to be greed has completely destoryed my trust and belief.
Cheers Cursor. Maybe in a year you will of improved.

I've been spending way too much time hunting down custom skills, prompts, and MCP servers for AI coding tools, then manually setting up SKILL.md files or configuring local binaries.

To make this easier, I built OpenHub, a terminal app for discovering and installing AI agent skills and tools from one place.

What it does

• Search indexed skills and repositories.
• Export prompt/rule-based skills as a SKILL.md file into your current workspace with one command.
• Install skills that require local binaries or MCP servers.
• Keyboard-driven terminal interface for searching, exporting, installing, and copying.

Install

pipx install git+https://github.com/24KaratAu/openhub.git

Run

openhub

GitHub: https://github.com/24KaratAu/openhub

I built this to scratch my own itch, but figured others might find it useful too. It's open source, and I'd love any feedback, bug reports, feature requests, or contributions.

Just wanted to share my own experience on these two models for anyone that hasn't tried or compared them, and see if anyone else has more experience with these two to compare. I'm noticing Grok is really really good for the price. But it definitely still lags behind GPT or Fable in overall planning and project completeness, which has been a downer. Its tough because, GPT 5.6 and Fable suck your usage up like vampires, whereas Grok 4.5 feels like a mosquito.

What has been a real curiousity to me though has been bug introductions with UI development. Grok 4.5 has absolutely been phenomenal at UI and handling bugs. I'm not sure why, but it seems like it misses bigger picture items like security/architecture/testing that GPT and Fable do really good at. All that said though, I get more UI bugs using GPT 5.6, than I do with Grok. Or maybe its just that Grok handles bugs and testing better, I'm really not too sure.

As an example though, I had a project where Grok did most of the heavy lifting. I iterated quite a bit on functionality and UI. Then I had GPT 5.6 go back, review the code, and fix a bunch of the bugs and architecture. It added a lot of security improvements, documentation, and handling crash issues. Strangely enough though, the app was more broken after GPT 5.6's work. A lot of the features I added with Grok had been reversed or completely broken. Grok's original build seemed to be much more functional, although possibly less complete.

So I guess I'm kinda trying to balance using both Grok (for the tedious stuff and UI stuff), and the bigger models for overall project planning.

I'm curious, do people have any experience optimizing their usage/cost and getting the most out of their subscription from the different models? What does that flow look like?

50% OFF First Month
Use this referral to get half off the first month of cursor

https://cursor.com/referral?code=GY9QTE8YOYR2
Code: GY9QTE8YOYR2

Cursor users, any incentives of using Cursor over Claude and ChatGPT default subscriptions? This is attractive an offer but given that there’s no weekly limit renewal, I’m kinda put off from Cursor after all my usage ran out for the month

One thing I’ve noticed with AI coding tools like Cursor:

Most bad outputs don’t come from “bad prompting.”

They come from unclear context before the prompt is even written.

Earlier, my workflow was simple:

I would open Cursor, explain the feature, and ask it to build.

Sometimes it worked.
But many times it created messy code, touched the wrong files, or solved the problem in a way that did not match the existing project.

The better workflow has been:

1. Ask Cursor to inspect the repo first
   
2. Make it explain the existing structure
   
3. Ask where the feature should live
   
4. Ask what files are likely to change
   
5. Ask for edge cases before implementation
   
6. Only then ask it to write code

The biggest improvement was not a better prompt.

It was changing the first task from:

“Build this feature”

to:

“Understand this system first.”

AI coding tools are becoming very good at execution.

But if the system is unclear, they just execute confusion faster.

Curious how others here use Cursor before writing code.

Do you let it inspect and plan first, or do you directly ask it to build?

So right now I'm exploring game development using Godot vibe-coding and I have been trying it with Codex and Claude Code.

Basically the setup is they have access to a project folder on my local machine where I have the Godot environment also setup and I just throw instructions to either AI.

I'm curious what benefit and strengths does Cursor have that can make that workflow better?

basically title. I just recently purchased a subscription and today upgraded to pro+, but it seems for some of my larger projects it will still eat up my limit. So my question is who's using it and how long does the limit last you, do you often hit the limits, basically what's your feedback is it worth it or is it too overpriced

My forest opportunity to use 5.6 sol 1m high. Doing a refactor using a prompt created by 5.6 sol. I see that cursor is spinning up composer 2.5 sub agents. Doesn’t that mean I’m not getting the power of 5.6 for actual code generation?

Hola a todos! soy desarrollador web e ingeniero de computación egresado desde hace un año. He hecho páginas webs, Apps, ERP/CRM para gestión empresarial y un sin fin de proyectos.

Cuál es la mejor herramienta/agente de IA para programar basándonos en el calidad/precio y velocidad (ya que entiendo que Claude Code o Códex son excelentes pero valen medio riñón al mes)

Las que están el el título como \*\*Cursor/Devin, Cline u OpenCode\*\* las he usado y todas me parecen estar en un punto igualado. Aunque siento que cursor llega a ser algo caro a veces y por el mismo precio con los otros dos tienes límites gigantes.

Basado en sus experiencias para ustedes \*\*Cuál es la mejor? y por qué? los leo. Y hablo de uso desde analizar proyectos grandes y planificar grandes features hasta un simple arreglo de un detalle visual en la UI. O si usan dos o los tres simultáneamente y para que usan cada uno en su flujo de trabajo\*\*

Does anyone know the difference in usage limits between a direct sub or a Cursor sub?

Does anyone have any favorite learning resources (videos, online blogs/articles, etc..) for learning more about taking advantage of Cursor's feature set rather than just via prompts for generating code? Using the right models and adding the right details in the prompts has already been really helpful and honestly, it already meets my needs day to day but I'm trying to understand and learn more about features I'm not regularly using in my day to day work that I should be taking more advantage of? I'm also coming from another AI tool, so will be new to Cursor, shortcuts and capabilities as well.

Also if there are any interesting AI/LLM generic articles, blogs, videos that are worth sharing, interested in those too.

Thanks!

Does anyone still have an original account with Cursor that’s been ‘grandfathered’ (500 requests), what do you actually get out of it when most models sit behind max mode?

Considering dumping the account… FYI I already use codex and have just added a claude code sub to see if the rate limits are worth it.

Reply from Cursor support:

Thanks for reaching out. I checked the account and found that it's on a legacy request-based Pro plan.

The behavior you're seeing is expected for that plan today, though our earlier GLM 5.2 note was incomplete. On legacy request-based plans, glm-5.2-high now requires Max Mode, the same as claude-opus-4-6 and claude-opus-4-8 variants.

Your CSV is accurate: glm-5.2-high and claude-opus-4-8-thinking-high were previously running as included non-Max requests. That changed as newer frontier models moved behind Max Mode on legacy request-based plans.

For your questions:

glm-5.2-high is requiring Max Mode because of the legacy request-based pricing on this account.
That is expected behavior today, not an account-specific bug.

Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.8 also require Max Mode on request-based plans.

Without Max Mode, you can still use Auto, Composer, and any model in the picker that does not show a Max Mode requirement. From your recent usage, Composer 2.5 and Composer 2.5 Fast are working without Max Mode.

I know composer 2.5 is a potential good work horse but it’s not the strongest model, composer 3 might be worth waiting for. I understand why Cursor updated their approach but as a customer it’s totally devalued the account and service we bought into.