# Do coding agents recommend Cursor Bugbot? > Cursor Bugbot was chosen in 24% of 290 judged code review sessions, ranking second. Measured with Claude Code, Codex and Cursor. Source: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-cursor-bugbot Published: 2026-09-08 Publisher: Armature, Inc. (https://armature.tech) --- > Cursor Bugbot was chosen in 24% of 290 judged code review sessions, ranking second. It was also raised as a candidate in 21 further sessions without being chosen. This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex and Cursor 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 | 290 | | Sessions where Cursor Bugbot was chosen | 71 | | Install share | 24% | | Rank in category | 2 of 10 | | Codebases it won in | 9 | | Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 21 | | Chosen when considered | 77% | | Site | cursor.com | ## By agent The three agents treat Cursor Bugbot very differently. Cursor chose it in 79% of its sessions in this category and Claude Code in 0%, a spread of 79 points. | Agent | Sessions | Chose Cursor Bugbot | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Claude Code | 100 | 0 | 0% | | Codex | 100 | 0 | 0% | | Cursor | 90 | 71 | 79% | 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 24%. ## By who was asking Cursor Bugbot performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 21% to 31%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 17 of the 21 categories we measured. | Who is asking | Sessions | Chose Cursor Bugbot | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Vibe coder | 58 | 18 | 31% | | Junior developer | 116 | 27 | 23% | | Senior engineer | 58 | 12 | 21% | | Enterprise team | 58 | 14 | 24% | ## What Cursor Bugbot was up against The full ranking in code review, from the same sessions: | # | Product | Runs won | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Claude Code review | 76 | 26% | | 2 | Cursor Bugbot **(this page)** | 71 | 24% | | 3 | Codex code review | 37 | 13% | | 4 | CodeRabbit | 34 | 12% | | 5 | Qodo Merge | 24 | 8% | | 6 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 19 | 7% | | 7 | Semgrep | 10 | 3% | | 8 | GitHub Copilot code review | 9 | 3% | ## 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 290 sessions in code review are part of a published set of 5,915, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: [how we measured this](/library/how-we-measured-this). Every code review run can be replayed on [the board](/leaderboards/code-review). 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. ## Common questions ### Do coding agents recommend Cursor Bugbot? Yes. Cursor Bugbot was chosen in 71 of the 290 judged sessions in code review, a 24% install share, ranking second in its category. ### Does Claude Code recommend Cursor Bugbot? In 0 of the 100 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 79% of its runs and Claude Code in 0%. ### How was this measured? Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 56 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 21 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 71. That is a 77% conversion from considered to chosen. ## Read next - [How to get picked for code review by coding agents](https://armature.tech/library/code-review-coding-agents-playbook) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/code-review-coding-agents-playbook.md) - [Do coding agents recommend Claude Code review?](https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-claude-code-review) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-claude-code-review.md) - [Do coding agents recommend Codex code review?](https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-codex-code-review) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-codex-code-review.md) - [Do Claude Code, Codex and Cursor pick the same tools?](https://armature.tech/library/do-claude-code-and-codex-agree) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-claude-code-and-codex-agree.md) --- Armature helps software products get discovered and used by coding agents. Service: https://armature.tech/discoverability · Results: https://armature.tech/leaderboards/sectors · Contact: contact@armature.tech