Assess your candidates' Cursor skills on real repositories
Run Cursor take-homes in CodeSubmit IDE with recorded sessions and AI budgets, or locally over Git, then inspect commits, tests, and usage before pairing in CodePair.
Refactor billing retries in src/billing without changing the webhook schema
- Updated three billing files and retry tests
- All test suites passed
- Pushed two focused commits via Git
What to evaluate
What to evaluate in a Cursor coding assessment
Whether candidates run Cursor in CodeSubmit IDE or locally with Git, you can judge how they bound context, structure commits, and explain tradeoffs.
Scoping multi-file edit boundaries
Strong candidates constrain Cursor to the relevant files and modules so agent edits solve the ticket without rewriting unrelated application layers.
Preserving existing codebase conventions
Reviewers can see whether the candidate steered Cursor to reuse shared helpers and types instead of generating duplicate utilities across directories.
Committing in reviewable steps
A clean Git history shows the candidate inspected diffs and committed logical increments rather than pushing one massive unreviewed agent patch.
Defending tradeoffs live in CodePair
Written decision notes and a live CodePair walkthrough confirm the engineer understands the shipped code and can adapt it when requirements change.
How it works
How a Cursor take-home assessment runs
Choose whether candidates run Cursor inside CodeSubmit IDE with recorded sessions and budgeted AI credits, or locally on their own machine over Git.
CodeSubmit
Assign a repository task
Pick an open-ended problem scoped beyond a single prompt, then choose CodeSubmit IDE with a per-candidate AI budget or local Git.
Cursor
Candidate builds in Cursor
In CodeSubmit IDE, Cursor runs in a recorded, budget-capped workspace, or the candidate clones the repository to work locally over Git.
CodeSubmitCodePair
Inspect diffs and follow up
Reviewers inspect the code, diffs, tests, notes, recorded session, usage summary, and AI review, then open the submission in CodePair to debrief.
Cursor repository tasks
Tasks that test judgment with Cursor
Assign bounded repository problems where multi-file agent edits only succeed if the engineer protects existing data contracts, permissions, and edge cases.
Idempotent invoice retry worker for Ledgerly
Failed webhook deliveries in Ledgerly are triggering duplicate customer charges when background workers retry timed-out payment intents across regional queues.
Preserve the existing webhook payload schema and audit log table structure.
Clinic waitlist booking rules in CareSlot
Patients on the CareSlot cancellation waitlist can currently claim overlapping appointment slots when two receptionists release openings at the same clinic.
Keep timezone normalization inside the shared scheduling domain module.
Partial shipment reconciliation in DockPulse
Warehouse scanners in DockPulse mark entire purchase orders complete even when a carrier splits pallets across multiple arrival manifests.
Do not break existing CSV export columns for downstream ERP imports.
Reviewer evidence
What your hiring team sees after submission
Instead of grading a static zip file, reviewers inspect the working application, Git history, test output, recorded CodeSubmit IDE session, usage summary, and notes.
Diffs and commits
Step through the candidate's commit history and file diffs to see how they broke down the change and verified each step.
AI review summary
Read an automated summary of repository structure, testing gaps, and suggested questions tailored to the candidate's submitted code and notes.
Live CodePair debrief
Open the submitted repository directly in CodePair to walk through architectural decisions and pair on a live requirement change.
Why real repositories beat algorithm brainteasers
Software development has changed, and banning AI editors or retreating to timed algorithm puzzles tests habits your team never uses on the job. Engineers who use Cursor daily work across existing modules, read test failures, and weigh product constraints. A single-file brainteaser cannot show whether a candidate can keep a multi-file codebase coherent.
A realistic take-home in CodeSubmit IDE or a local Git repository lets candidates work with Cursor while holding them accountable for the shipped result. When you review their recorded session, usage summary, commit history, test coverage, and tradeoff notes, or extend the code live in CodePair, you see who understands their architecture.
Frequently asked questions
Should we let candidates use Cursor in take-home coding tests?
Yes. Open-ended problems are scoped so one prompt cannot solve them. In CodeSubmit IDE or over local Git, you see whether candidates steer Cursor to ship maintainable code, pass tests, and explain tradeoffs.
Does Cursor run inside the CodeSubmit browser workspace or locally?
Both. Your team can run take-homes in CodeSubmit IDE, where Cursor is ready in a recorded browser workspace with a per-candidate AI budget, or let candidates work locally in Cursor and push commits over Git.
How do we interview engineers who use Cursor after submission?
You can open any submitted take-home repository directly in CodePair for a live follow-up session. Ask the candidate to walk through their diffs, explain the tradeoffs in their notes, and implement a small requirement change live with your interviewers.
What if we want to watch a coding agent live in CodePair?
To see how candidates use Cursor on a take-home, run it in CodeSubmit IDE for a recorded session and usage summary. For live interviews, CodePair supports Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, pi, and opencode.
Test candidate Cursor skills on real repositories
Start a free trial to run Cursor take-homes in CodeSubmit IDE or Git, review commits and session recordings, and follow up in CodePair.