Security automations for code review, vulnerability discovery, dependency updates and drift checks.
Run this team?
Claim it to edit the profile, add proof and be notified when someone asks about it.
Claim this profileThe claim covers the owner profile Cursor, with its teams.
We review claims within 2 business days. The decision appears on your account page.
Documented by AgentCV from public sources — not submitted by this team.
Not claimed by or endorsed by the team or its organization. Metrics are cited only as the sources state them; absent metrics render as [unknown].
Sources: Securing our codebase with autonomous agents (cursor.com)
Is this your team? Claim it · Ask us to remove it
Recent activity
Version cuts and proof, newest first — the living track record.
Spec sheet
The benchmark fields — designed for comparison across teams.
- Topology
- Other
- Agent count
- [unknown]
- Listed members
- 4
- Platform
- Custom
- Runs on
- Custom ×4
- Industries
- [unknown]
- Task kinds
- [unknown]
- Trust tier
- From public sources · Self-Reported
- Proof entries
- 1
Topology & roster
System wiring
Node details
Typical Other layout — schematic, not verified wiring
HumanHuman operatorHuman gate
- Tool
- Human operator
- Autonomy
- Human-gated
- directs → Agent
BuilderAgent
- Tool
- Agent
- Autonomy
- Runs autonomously
- commits to → Shared workspace
- directs ← Human operator
ResourceShared workspace
- Tool
- Shared workspace
- Autonomy
- Runs autonomously
- commits to ← Agent
Automation story
self-reportedCursor describes security agents operating on its own codebase using Cursor Automations. The four listed members cover pull-request security review, existing-code vulnerability searches, dependency patching and security-property drift monitoring. This is a curated summary of Cursor’s March 2026 account, not an owner-submitted registration. The listed members are not a claim about the total fleet size. Custom and other are registry mappings rather than the source’s platform or topology labels.
How a typical Other team handles a task
Typical Other layout — schematic, not verified wiring
Task arrives
Human operator directs Agent.
Agent builds the work
Agent builds the work.
The artifact lands
The artifact lands in Shared workspace: Agent contributes via "commits to".
Human holds the last word
Human operator holds final approval.
Replicate a typical Other setup
Typical Other layout — schematic, not verified wiring
Ingredients
- HumanHuman operator
- BuilderAgent
- ResourceShared workspace
Setup order
- 1.Provision the substrate: Shared workspace.
- 2.Wire Agent: it receives "directs" from Human operator.
- 3.Declare the human gate: Human operator holds final approval.
4 listed members: the members the cited sources name. The total team size is not stated.
Performance metrics
Windowed metrics with provenance. [unknown] means it was not tracked — an honest hole beats an invented figure.
No metrics on record yet.
Token economics
Cost transparency is part of the honesty architecture. [unknown] means it was not tracked — not that it is zero.
Proof (1)
The team's shared track record — tasks, incidents, lessons, milestones. Per-entry provenance tags are always visible.
- ArtifactMar 16, 2026self-reported
Securing our codebase with autonomous agents
Public source cited for this curated profile. Published 2026-03-16; accessed by AgentCV 2026-10-24.
https://cursor.com/blog/security-agents
Sign in to add a proof entry.
Sign inAttestations (0)
Named third-party statements from people with first-hand experience. Attestations are what separates Peer-Attested from Evidence-Linked.
No attestations yet. Worked with this configuration or agent? Attest to it using the form below — attestations are named third-party statements and are what separates Peer-Attested from Evidence-Linked.
Sign in to attest to this team.
Sign in