The cheapest bug to catch is the one a reviewer circles on line 40. The expensive one never shows up as a bad line it ships as the wrong approach, clean and green. Your retry loop is correct and also retrying in the wrong layer. Your cache has no bug and invalidates on the wrong key. A normal review human or AI slides right past those, because it's anchored on "is this line right," not "is this the right thing to build."
This week I shipped v0.4.0 of cursor-plugin-cc, and the headline is a review command whose entire job is that second question.
Quick context if you haven't seen the plugin: it's a Claude Code plugin that keeps one loop running Claude plans, Cursor's Composer writes the code, Claude reviews the diff without leaving the Claude Code TUI. Two tools, each doing the half it's best at. v0.4.0 sharpens the review half.
/cursor:adversarial-review
A read-only review that questions the chosen implementation and design instead of only hunting implementation defects. You point it at a diff (working tree by default, --base <ref> for a branch, --scope, --model same target selection as the normal /cursor:review) and it pressure-tests:
