Cursor Composer layers in agentic coding

Cursor Composer output stays reviewable when every layer around it leaves a receipt the next layer can check. Composer is the agent pane in Cursor that drafts and applies multi-file changes in one loop. The loop is the easy part. The layers around it decide whether the work survives review.

Here is the failure I keep seeing. The diff reads confident, the summary reads calm, and the reviewer who has to merge it cannot reconstruct a single decision underneath. Confidence is a writing style. Review needs evidence. When the decision trail stays in chat, the merge becomes a guess.

The fix is not a smarter model. It is a habit: each layer writes down what the next layer needs.

Give every layer a receipt

Think of an agent run as a stack of layers: the prompt, the rules file, the hooks, the review. Each layer has gaps. Incidents happen when the gaps line up, and an unwritten decision trail lines them up by default.

So you close the gaps with four small artifacts, one per common failure.

A decision stub fixes review theater. Your CI is green and reviewers still ask "why this approach?" with no written answer. Force three lines in the PR template: constraints considered, rejected alternatives, verification proof. Now the debate is about explicit tradeoffs instead of vibes.

A scope ledger fixes scope fog. Cursor .mdc rule language sounds precise until two reviewers argue about what it meant. Put a five-line ledger in the parent chat: goal, allowed paths, forbidden paths, verification command, merge owner. Review becomes checking the ledger against the diff.

A CLAUDE.md supremacy clause fixes permission creep. On shared laptops, Claude Code bash approvals turn into muscle memory. State at the top of CLAUDE.md which hooks win, which folders need human eyes, and where temporary overrides live. Sessions stop inventing policy mid-run.

A replay sandwich fixes replay gaps. Teams on Codex CLI merge green runs whose transcripts never reached review. Have AGENTS.md require an intent line, the command transcript, and a diff summary before the PR opens. Review gets reproducible without standing behind someone's terminal.

Paste this delegation snapshot

Drop a rule like this into your repo so the boundaries live in a file, not in someone's head. Adapt the globs to your layout.

---
description: Delegation boundary snapshot (adapt globs to your repo)
globs:
  - "**/*"
alwaysApply: false
---

- Cursor: keep scopes explicit in `.mdc`; forbid undeclared MCP domains.
- Claude Code: cite `CLAUDE.md` precedence before expanding bash scope.
- Codex: ensure `AGENTS.md` carries replay-friendly verification notes for CLI runs.

This belongs in your workflow before the change ever reaches review: the handoff has to survive without the original operator in the room.

Run the merge gate

A layered workflow is working when these four answers come from files, not from memory. Read the gate before you approve.

If any answer needs a chat transcript or a person's memory, that layer has a gap. None of this replaces architecture judgement. Agents speed up execution, not ownership.

Start with one layer

Pick the failure that bites your team most often, write its receipt into a file this week, and check it at your next merge. If your Composer workflow ships faster than your review can explain it, our agentic coding training walks a team through all four layers on your own repo.

Further reading

• Cursor Agent docs
• Claude Code docs
• Codex CLI docs
• Model Context Protocol specification
• OpenAI Plugins repository