Using Cursor AI to Enhance Its Own Commands: A Meta-Experiment

The Moment I Realized AI Could Improve Itself

I was sitting at my desk, staring at a workflow problem that had been nagging me for weeks. I had repetitive tasks that needed structure, consistency, and clear rules. So I did what any developer would do—I started writing detailed command specifications.

Then it hit me: Wait, I'm using Cursor AI every day. What if I could use it to help me write better commands for Cursor itself?

That's when things got interesting. I wasn't just using artificial intelligence to code—I was using it to improve its own instructions. It was like asking ChatGPT to write better prompts for ChatGPT, or asking Claude to optimize how you talk to Claude.

This is the story of that experiment, what I learned about AI coding assistants, and why this meta-approach completely changed how I work.

What Is Cursor AI, Actually?

Before I dive into the experiment, let me explain what Cursor AI is for anyone unfamiliar.

Cursor is an AI-powered code editor—think VS Code, but with GPT models, Claude, Gemini, and even DeepSeek built right in. You can chat with it, ask it to write code, refactor functions, or explain complex logic.

Unlike ChatGPT where you copy-paste code back and forth, Cursor understands your entire codebase. It can see your project structure, read your files, and make changes directly in your editor.

Here's what makes it different from traditional AI coding tools:

• Context awareness: It knows what files you're working on
• Multi-model support: Switch between GPT-4, Claude 3.7, Gemini 2.5 Pro, or DeepSeek
• Direct file editing: No copy-paste hell
• Command-based workflows: You can define custom rules and commands

That last point is what sparked my experiment.

The Problem: Repetitive Workflows Need Structure

I found myself doing certain tasks repeatedly—tasks that followed patterns but required careful attention to detail. Each time, I'd spend mental energy remembering all the steps, checking formats, and ensuring consistency.

I needed a system. I needed rules.

So I started documenting my workflows as command specifications—detailed instructions that Cursor could follow. Think of them like standard operating procedures, but for AI.

For example, if I needed to process data in a specific way, I'd write a command specification that outlined:

• The exact steps to follow
• Format requirements
• Quality checks
• Common mistakes to avoid
• Success criteria

The idea was simple: Write the rules once, then let Cursor execute them perfectly every time.

Writing Rules for AI: Harder Than I Expected

Writing these command specifications was eye-opening. I thought it would be straightforward—just write down what I do, right?

Wrong.

Challenge 1: Ambiguity Is Everywhere

Instructions that seemed clear in my head became ambiguous on paper. "Process the data" means nothing without context. What kind of processing? In what order? What counts as valid data?

I had to be extremely specific. Every assumption I made needed to be stated explicitly.

Challenge 2: Edge Cases Multiply

Once I started writing rules, edge cases appeared everywhere:

• What if the input is empty?
• What if there are duplicates?
• How should errors be handled?
• What about special characters in filenames?

Each edge case needed its own rule. My command specifications grew longer and more complex.

Challenge 3: Balancing Detail vs. Readability

Too little detail? The AI makes assumptions I don't want. Too much detail? The commands become overwhelming and hard to maintain.

Finding the right balance felt like its own skill.

The Meta-Moment: Using Cursor to Improve Cursor

After writing several command specifications, I had a realization: These commands could be better.

They were functional, but they were:

• Verbose in some places
• Unclear in others
• Missing important edge cases
• Not optimally structured

I could spend hours refining them myself... or I could ask Cursor to help me improve them.

So I tried something wild: I gave Cursor my command specifications and asked it to enhance them.

The Prompt That Changed Everything

Here's essentially what I asked:

"Review this command specification. Identify ambiguities, missing edge cases, unclear instructions, and structural issues. Then rewrite it to be clearer, more comprehensive, and better organized."

And Cursor—powered by Claude 3.7 Thinking in this case—went to work.

What Happened Next Blew My Mind

The AI didn't just make minor tweaks. It fundamentally improved the command structure:

Improvement 1: Identified Hidden Assumptions

Cursor caught assumptions I didn't realize I was making. For instance, I had a rule about processing files but never specified what to do if a file was locked or in use. The AI added explicit error handling instructions.

Improvement 2: Better Organization

My original commands were somewhat stream-of-consciousness. Cursor restructured them into logical sections:

• Overview and purpose
• Input requirements
• Step-by-step process
• Quality checks
• Error handling
• Success criteria

The structure made everything clearer—both for the AI and for me when reviewing.

Improvement 3: Added Decision Trees

For complex workflows, Cursor added decision trees: "If condition A, do X. If condition B, do Y." This made branching logic explicit instead of implied.

Improvement 4: Clearer Examples

My examples were minimal. Cursor expanded them with more context, showing both correct and incorrect approaches. This reduced ambiguity significantly.

Improvement 5: Caught Inconsistencies

I had used different terminology for the same concept in different parts of the document. Cursor standardized it, making the commands internally consistent.

The Results: Measurable Improvements

After using the AI-enhanced commands for a few weeks, I noticed real differences:

Time Savings: Before: ~15 minutes per task (including mental overhead of remembering steps) After: ~5 minutes per task (just review the output)

Error Reduction: Before: Small mistakes every 3-4 executions After: Rare mistakes, and only in genuinely edge cases

Consistency: Before: Quality varied based on my attention level After: Consistently high quality regardless of when I run it

Mental Energy: Before: Had to be "on" and focused After: Can run commands even when tired or distracted

The most surprising benefit? I understand my own processes better now. The AI's restructuring forced me to think more clearly about what I was trying to achieve.

Comparing AI Models: Which Works Best?

One huge advantage of Cursor is you can switch between different AI models. I tested the command enhancement task across several:

Claude 3.7 excelled at catching logical inconsistencies and organizing complex information. Very thorough with edge cases, though sometimes verbose. Best for complex command structures.

GPT-4.1 offered a good balance of speed and detail. Excellent at generating examples and code. Occasionally missed subtle edge cases but worked great for straightforward commands.

Gemini 2.5 Pro showed strong analytical capabilities, especially for data processing tasks. Good with technical documentation but sometimes less creative with solutions.

DeepSeek surprised me as an open-source option. Fast and cost-effective, though it needs more explicit guidance and has a smaller context window. Best for simpler, well-defined commands.

For command enhancement specifically, Claude 3.7 Thinking was most effective. Its ability to reason through edge cases and organize complex information made the enhanced commands significantly more robust. But I use different models for different tasks—that flexibility is one of Cursor's biggest advantages.

How You Can Do This Too

Want to try this approach yourself? Here's my process:

Step 1: Write Your Initial Commands

Start by documenting a workflow you do repeatedly. Don't overthink it—just write down the steps as you understand them. Include:

• What you're trying to accomplish
• The steps involved
• Any format requirements
• Common problems you encounter

Step 2: Use AI to Enhance

Give your command to Cursor (or ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) with a prompt like:

Review this command specification for [task description].
Identify:
1. Ambiguities or unclear instructions
2. Missing edge cases
3. Inconsistent terminology
4. Structural improvements

Then rewrite it to be clearer, more comprehensive, and better organized.
Include specific examples and decision trees where helpful.

Step 3: Review and Refine

The AI's output won't be perfect. Review it carefully:

• Does it match your actual intent?
• Are the edge cases realistic?
• Is anything over-complicated?
• Did it add value or just verbosity?

Merge the best parts of your original and the AI's version.

Step 4: Test in Practice

Use the enhanced command in real work. Note what works well and what still needs improvement.

Step 5: Iterate

Based on real usage, refine the command further. You can even ask the AI to help with this refinement.

After 2-3 iterations, you'll have a robust, clear command that works reliably.

Practical Tips I Learned

Be Explicit About Context: Don't assume the AI knows your environment. Specify what tools you're using, your file structure, safe assumptions, and the end goal.

Include Failure Cases: Don't just write the happy path. Explicitly describe what could go wrong, how to detect failures, and what to do when things fail.

Use Examples Liberally: Show, don't just tell. For every rule, include a correct example, an incorrect example (what NOT to do), and an edge case. This dramatically reduces misinterpretation.

Version Your Commands: As you refine commands, keep versions. It's useful to see how they evolved and occasionally revert if a change doesn't work out.

Test Across Models: Different AI models interpret instructions differently. Test your commands with multiple models to identify model-specific vs. universally clear instructions.

The Bigger Picture: AI Improving AI

This experiment taught me something profound about where we are with artificial intelligence.

We're at a point where AI can meaningfully improve how we interact with AI. That's not trivial—it's a feedback loop that has real implications:

Self-Improving Systems

If AI can improve its own instructions, what else can it improve? This opens doors to:

• Self-optimizing prompts
• Automatic workflow refinement
• Adaptive command structures
• Learning from user feedback in real-time

Human-AI Collaboration

The best results came from human insight + AI processing power:

• I understood the intent and context
• The AI caught logical gaps and inconsistencies
• Together, we created something better than either could alone

This feels like the future of knowledge work—not AI replacing humans, but AI amplifying human capabilities.

The Democratization of Expertise

With good command structures, anyone can execute complex workflows with expert-level consistency. You don't need years of experience—you need well-defined processes and an AI that can follow them.

Unexpected Benefits

Beyond just better commands, this approach brought unexpected advantages:

Knowledge Preservation: My workflows are now documented clearly enough that anyone (or any AI) could execute them. This is huge for team collaboration, onboarding, and reducing bus factor.

Continuous Improvement: Each time I run a command, I notice small improvements to make. The AI helps me implement these quickly, creating a virtuous cycle of refinement.

Reduced Cognitive Load: I used to hold all these workflows in my head. Now they're externalized, freeing up mental space for creative problem-solving instead of process execution.

Better Understanding: Teaching the AI taught me. Clarifying my instructions for the AI forced me to understand my own processes more deeply.

Challenges and Limitations

This approach isn't perfect. Here are the key limitations:

Over-Optimization: Commands can become too detailed and rigid. Finding the right level of specificity is an ongoing balance.

Context Limits: Even with large context windows, very complex workflows need to be broken into smaller commands.

Model Consistency: Different versions of the same model can behave differently. A command that works perfectly with GPT-4 might need tweaking for GPT-4.1.

Cost: Using advanced models frequently adds up. You need to balance capability with cost, especially for simple tasks.

Trust Verification: You still need to verify the AI's output. Blindly trusting enhanced commands without review can introduce subtle errors.

What I'm Exploring Next

This experiment opened new directions I'm excited to explore:

Adaptive Commands: Can commands self-adjust based on usage patterns? If a command fails repeatedly in certain conditions, can it learn to handle those automatically?

Command Libraries: I'm building a library of reusable command components—like a function library, but for AI instructions.

Multi-Step Workflows: Using AI to orchestrate complex workflows with conditional branching based on intermediate results.

Collaborative Refinement: What if multiple people use the same command and the AI learns from all their feedback?

The Future of AI-Powered Development

After months of using Cursor AI and experimenting with this meta-approach, I'm convinced this is a glimpse of the future.

Development won't be about writing every line of code—it'll be about defining what you want clearly, structuring problems effectively, guiding AI to implement solutions, and reviewing output.

AI won't replace developers. It'll multiply what one developer can accomplish. The developers who thrive will be those who learn to collaborate effectively with AI.

The skill of prompt engineering will evolve into "AI instruction architecture"—designing systems of commands and workflows that leverage AI capabilities optimally.

Why This Matters

If you're a developer, researcher, or anyone doing systematic knowledge work, this approach has immediate value:

1. Document once, execute forever: Your workflows become repeatable assets
2. Consistent quality: Remove variability from routine tasks
3. Faster onboarding: New team members can follow established commands
4. Continuous improvement: Refine processes without starting from scratch
5. Reduced errors: Catch edge cases before they cause problems

And the meta-benefit: Using AI to improve how you use AI creates a compounding advantage.

Getting Started Today

You don't need to be an AI expert to try this. Pick one repetitive task you do regularly. Document the steps in plain English. Ask an AI to improve it (Cursor, ChatGPT, Claude—doesn't matter). Test the improved version in real work. Iterate based on what you learn.

Even one well-defined command will save you time and mental energy.

My Honest Take

Using Cursor AI to enhance its own commands felt weird at first—like some kind of paradox. But it makes perfect sense when you think about it.

AI is a tool, and like any tool, how well it works depends on how you use it. Better instructions = better results. If AI can help you write better instructions, you should use it for that.

The meta-loop—AI improving its own usage—is powerful. It's not magic, it's not sentient, it's just good engineering: using the best tools available for each part of the process.

What surprised me most? This wasn't just about productivity. It changed how I think about my own work. Articulating processes clearly enough for AI forced me to understand them more deeply.

Sometimes the student teaches the teacher by asking better questions.

Conclusion: The Experiment Continues

I'm still learning, still refining, still discovering new ways to leverage AI in my workflow. This experiment—using Cursor to improve Cursor—was just the beginning.

The real insight? AI becomes more valuable when you stop treating it as a magic box and start treating it as a collaborator you're training.

Write clear instructions. Use AI to improve them. Test in practice. Refine. Repeat.

That's the loop that's changing how I work, and I'm excited to see where it leads.

If you're curious about AI coding assistants, whether it's Cursor, Copilot, or something else, try this meta-approach. Use the AI to help you use the AI better.

It's turtles all the way down—but each turtle makes you faster.

This experiment fundamentally changed my development workflow. If you're exploring AI coding tools or have tried similar meta-approaches, I'd love to hear about your experience! Connect with me on Twitter or LinkedIn to share what you're learning.

Support My Work

If this guide helped you with this topic, I'd really appreciate your support! Creating comprehensive, free content like this takes significant time and effort. Your support helps me continue sharing knowledge and creating more helpful resources for developers.

☕ Buy me a coffee - Every contribution, big or small, means the world to me and keeps me motivated to create more content!

Cover image by Andrew Neel on Unsplash