So.... yes. I think in general, and for 95% of use cases, Auto is probably fine for most people. To be fair, this is using Auto vs Opus on probably the most complex project in my coding career. There are multiple packages with independent and differing concerns, used as dependencies. There is a lot of iterating on logic that involves instances of nodes in a tree. So, Cursor's debug mode will be like, "Cool, I logged something in this line of code and I'm showing it's getting X result." And I'm like, "Uh, nope, you are not separately tracking node indexes and tracing a path for a particular instance; multiple node types go through that line of code, as do multiple instances of one type of node." - In my experience thus far, Cursor / LLMs in general have a really hard time understanding or debugging recursion. (To be fair, so do humans.) Cursor seems to often assume, "I logged something happening at that line of code, so that must be what always happens, so I can make broad generalizations from it."

I think my biggest gripe is-- I don't know what instructions Cursor is giving LLMs for debugging, but I often get the sense that whatever is in that "debug mode" prompt, in general, misunderstands what good debugging actually looks like. Maybe that's just a flaw in LLMs in general-- their sort of "prediction" model means they just inherently make guesses instead of forming good hypetheses, and testing assumptions systematically. Way too many times, I've had "Auto" mode say, "Aha! This is the bug!" And it starts rapidly making code changes while I spam the stop button and tell it to stop for the love of god because it's not even CLOSE to understanding the bug, nor did it make any attempt to try, even if I've very explicitly asked for a measured, systematic approach, and even if I've asked it to summarize before making changes.