Every Cursor tutorial shows the same demo: "look, I typed a comment and it wrote the function." That's table stakes. This video covers the patterns I actually use to ship production code at Esy — patterns that work when the codebase is 50,000+ lines, the components are interconnected, and a wrong edit breaks the build.

Pattern 1: Context-Bounded Refactoring

The key to using Cursor effectively in a large codebase is limiting the context window to exactly what matters. When refactoring a component, I explicitly include only:

• The component file
• Its direct imports
• The test file (if it exists)
• The type definitions it depends on

Including the entire directory kills output quality. The model starts "improving" code you didn't ask it to touch.

Pattern 2: Test-First Component Generation

When building a new component, I write the test first — describing the expected behavior, props, and edge cases. Then I feed the test file to Cursor and ask it to implement the component that passes. The test file acts as a specification, not just a safety net.

Pattern 3: Build-Error-Driven Iteration

After any significant edit, I run the build immediately. Cursor is remarkably good at fixing its own TypeScript errors and Next.js build failures when you feed it the error output. The workflow becomes: edit → build → fix → build → commit.

What Doesn't Work

• Asking Cursor to "improve" a file — too vague, produces noise
• Multi-file edits in one prompt — model loses track of changes across files
• Ignoring the build — Cursor can write code that looks correct but fails SSR safety checks

The Meta-Pattern

The overarching pattern: AI coding tools amplify your engineering judgment, they don't replace it. Every Cursor output goes through the same review I'd give a junior developer's PR. The speed gain comes from not typing boilerplate, not from skipping review.