The evaluation is measuring access friction instead of developer value.
Security approval protects the prospect's controls while the procurement date requires enough developers to experience Cursor.
Who you’d be doing this for
“My CTO keeps asking what engineers actually built with it, and half the cohort still cannot get in.”
Amir Salehi · Director of Developer Platform
She sponsors the evaluation for an engineering organization that must validate developer productivity gains without bypassing regulated access controls.
What is at stake
Only 62 of 150 invited developers have activated, despite 78% activation after approved identity setup. You must weigh a faster evaluation path against the security evidence the buyer still needs.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- speed to evidence vs security completeness
- broad cohort value vs limited evaluation capacity
- procurement timing vs real workflow adoption
Why Cursor
Cursor evaluations depend on engineers reaching real repository workflows, not merely receiving invitations.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 42 more at Cursor, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.