Context is the difference
Ask any AI editor to "write a test" and you'll get a test. Whether it uses your fixtures, follows your folder structure and avoids hard waits depends on what the editor knows about your project.
We give Cursor that knowledge once, in rules checked into the repository, so every engineer gets the same quality. Then we connect it to the tools it needs and build a small prompt library for the test tasks your team does every week.
What we set up
Rules for your framework
Conventions for structure, locators, waits, data and assertions.
Scoped rules per folder
Different guidance for UI, API and unit tests where they differ.
MCP servers
Playwright for live pages, plus your issue tracker and test management tool.
Prompt library
Ticket to test, fix a failing test, add negative cases, review a spec.
Background tasks
Longer test jobs handed to Cursor's agents and returned for review.
Team onboarding
A short workshop so every engineer uses the same workflow.
How we keep it reliable
- Rules before prompts: Most quality issues are fixed once in the rules, not repeatedly in chat.
- Run, don't trust: Every generated test is executed before it's committed.
- Small diffs: Changes stay small enough for meaningful review.
- Shared, versioned setup: Rules and prompts live in the repo and improve through pull requests.
- Lint as a backstop: ESLint rules for Playwright catch what the agent misses.
Good first use cases
- Test-first bug fixes: Write the failing test for a reported bug, then the fix.
- Negative and edge cases: Expand happy-path specs with validation and error paths.
- Page-object generation: New screens turned into page objects with stable locators.
- Spec reviews: Ask the agent to review a test against your rules before you do.
Where it fits
Cursor-assisted testing complements a QA automation framework your team owns. We set up the rules and workflows, and can build or clean up the underlying framework first. See our QA automation, API testing and performance testing services.