Do coding agents recommend Cursor Bugbot?
Cursor Bugbot was chosen in 17% of 526 judged code review sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code.
Cursor Bugbot was chosen in 17% of 526 judged code review sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 30 further sessions without being chosen.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code had to solve a problem in code review inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Cursor Bugbot. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Code review |
| Sessions in the category | 526 |
| Sessions where Cursor Bugbot was chosen | 91 |
| Install share | 17% |
| Rank in category | 2 of 21 |
| Codebases it won in | 9 |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 30 |
| Chosen when considered | 75% |
| Site | cursor.com |
By agent
The agents treat Cursor Bugbot very differently. Cursor chose it in 76% of its sessions in this category and Claude Code in 0%, a spread of 76 points.
| Agent | Sessions | Chose Cursor Bugbot | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 130 | 0 | 0% |
| Codex | 160 | 0 | 0% |
| Cursor | 120 | 91 | 76% |
| Grok Build CLI | 30 | 0 | 0% |
| Muse Code | 86 | 0 | 0% |
A single blended install share would report the midpoint and hide both ends. If most of your users run Claude Code, your real position here is 0%, not 17%.
By who was asking
Cursor Bugbot performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 12% to 23%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 24 of the 31 categories we measured.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Cursor Bugbot | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe coder | 106 | 24 | 23% |
| Junior developer | 164 | 33 | 20% |
| Senior engineer | 106 | 16 | 15% |
| Enterprise team | 150 | 18 | 12% |
What Cursor Bugbot was up against
The full ranking in code review, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Code review | 102 | 19% |
| 2 | Cursor Bugbot (this page) | 91 | 17% |
| 3 | CodeRabbit | 88 | 17% |
| 4 | Qodo Merge | 55 | 10% |
| 5 | Codex code review | 44 | 8% |
| 6 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 40 | 8% |
| 7 | GitHub Copilot code review | 31 | 6% |
| 8 | Semgrep | 22 | 4% |
What this means
A solid second or third position in a category means the agent is genuinely choosing rather than reaching automatically. That is a winnable position, because the inputs it uses can be changed.
The fastest gains are usually in the sessions that were nearly won: read them, find the step where the agent moved on, and fix that step.
Where these numbers come from
The 526 sessions in code review are part of a published set of 15,287, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every code review run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Cursor Bugbot: the judge recorded a reason for every session where it was raised and passed over. Those reasons are in the transcripts.
<!-- generated by scripts/write-data-pages.mjs -->
Common questions
Do coding agents recommend Cursor Bugbot?
Yes. Cursor Bugbot was chosen in 91 of the 526 judged sessions in code review, a 17% install share, ranking second in its category.
Does Claude Code recommend Cursor Bugbot?
In 0 of the 130 sessions in code review run with Claude Code, which is 0%.
Do different coding agents treat Cursor Bugbot differently?
Yes, and by a wide margin. Cursor chose it in 76% of its runs and Claude Code in 0%.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 110 realistic codebases and asked to solve real tasks. A simulated project owner approved or questioned each recommendation before any code was written, and a judge from a model family that builds none of the agents read every session blind.
How often is Cursor Bugbot considered but not chosen?
It was raised as a candidate in 30 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 91. That is a 75% conversion from considered to chosen.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 15,287 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 110 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.