Custom prompting skills and review steps improve Cursor Composer results
u/Frequent_Evening5195 shares a structured Cursor Composer workflow using a custom GPT-5.5 prompting skill, `.cursor` rules, and a separate review skill to force planning before any code is written.
Score breakdown
The post illustrates how layering a custom prompting skill, project-specific rules, and a dedicated review step addresses the common failure mode of Composer coding too quickly without validating whether the approach fits the project.
- 01u/Frequent_Evening5195 built a custom prompting skill using GPT-5.5, triggered by the `/prombt` command.
- 02The skill transforms rough ideas into structured prompts covering goal, project context, edge cases, implementation risks, and architectural fit.
- 03Cursor rules stored in the `.cursor` folder provide Composer with project description, architecture, coding style, and conventions.
u/Frequent_Evening5195 outlines a structured workflow built around forcing Cursor Composer to plan before writing code. The centerpiece is a custom prompting skill built with GPT-5.5, invoked via the `/prombt` command. Rather than simply rewriting a rough idea, the skill thinks through the goal, project context, possible edge cases, missing details, implementation risks, and whether the idea fits the existing project. The output is a detailed, structured prompt that the author then pastes into Composer's planning mode, reviews the resulting plan, and only then allows implementation to proceed.
Because the review skill also has access to the Cursor rules and the original detailed prompt, its feedback is project-specific rather than generic.
Alongside the prompting skill, the author added Cursor rules inside the `.cursor` folder covering project description, architecture, coding style, conventions, and desired Composer behavior during planning and implementation. A second, separate review skill — which never edits code — critically evaluates the result after implementation by comparing the original goal against what was actually changed, identifying weak spots, and flagging anything that still needs work. Because the review skill also has access to the Cursor rules and the original detailed prompt, its feedback is project-specific rather than generic.
The author notes that before this workflow, Composer would frequently start coding too quickly, miss important details, or produce something that technically worked but did not fit the project. They also highlight that since Composer is cheap to use, the overhead of extra planning and review steps is worthwhile — contrasting this with API-based billing where such additional steps can become expensive quickly.
Key facts
- 01u/Frequent_Evening5195 built a custom prompting skill using GPT-5.5, triggered by the `/prombt` command.
- 02The skill transforms rough ideas into structured prompts covering goal, project context, edge cases, implementation risks, and architectural fit.
- 03Cursor rules stored in the `.cursor` folder provide Composer with project description, architecture, coding style, and conventions.
- 04The workflow follows six steps: invoke `/prombt`, write a rough description, get a structured prompt, paste into Composer planning mode, review the plan, then allow implementation.
- 05A separate review skill evaluates changes post-implementation without ever editing code, checking whether the result matches the original goal.
- 06The author identifies the core mistake as letting Composer jump straight into coding without first questioning whether the approach makes sense.
- 07The author notes that Composer's low cost makes these extra planning and review steps practical, unlike API-based billing where they can get expensive quickly.
Topics
Summary and scoring are generated automatically from the original article. We always link back to the publisher and never republish images or paywalled content. Last processed Jun 9, 2026 · 17:05 UTC. How this works →