πŸ“‹ vs Β· regulated Γ— cursor

Cursor vs GreatCTO for regulated industry

Short answer: both. Cursor in-editor multi-file code generation with deep Anthropic + OpenAI integration. GreatCTO orchestrates the SDLC around it β€” gates, parallel reviewers, archetype-specific compliance. Same plugin works inside Cursor.

What each does well

Different layers of the same problem.

Cursor

  • β–Έin-editor multi-file code generation with deep Anthropic + OpenAI integration
  • β–ΈCategory: AI-native IDE
  • β–ΈWhere it stops: at the code. Doesn't enforce gates, doesn't run specialist reviewers, doesn't carry memory across sessions.

GreatCTO on top of Cursor

  • βœ“83 specialist agents (architect β†’ pm β†’ senior-dev pool β†’ reviewers β†’ devops β†’ l3-support)
  • βœ“Auto-detects regulated archetype β†’ wires the right compliance gates
  • βœ“One human gate β€” you approve the spec; architecture, build, review, and ship run unattended after
  • βœ“Memory layer: lessons + decisions persist across sessions and projects
  • βœ“GreatCTO sits above your editor β€” Cursor writes the code, GreatCTO runs the SDLC process (gates, reviewers, compliance) around it. Same plugin works in Cursor.
Architecture Β· regulated

What gets wired automatically when GreatCTO detects regulated.

Run npx great-cto init in your regulated project. GreatCTO scans manifests, picks the archetype, attaches the right reviewer agents and compliance gates. You don't write the gates; you override them if your specifics differ.

STAGE 1 Β· PLAN

architect

Drafts ARCH.md + ADR + cost estimate. You approve scope at gate:plan. No implementation starts before your approval.

STAGE 3 Β· IMPLEMENT

senior-dev pool (parallel)

Cursor does the editing. GreatCTO orchestrates which agents claim which tasks (from the PM decomposition), runs them in isolated worktrees, and feeds the diff to reviewers.

STAGE 5 Β· REVIEW

5 reviewers in parallel

qa-engineer Β· security-officer Β· performance-engineer Β· regulated-reviewer Β· code-reviewer. Verdicts aggregate to a single APPROVED / BLOCKED chip at gate:ship.

STAGE 7 Β· OPERATE

l3-support + memory loop

P0 incidents extract a lesson. Pattern hash + detection order written to .great_cto/lessons.md. Next iteration's agents read this in Step 0.

Full state machine with every node clickable to its agent on GitHub: /architecture.

When to pick which

Decision tree.

Cursor alone is enough if

  • You're prototyping; production isn't in scope.
  • The codebase is small enough that one human can review everything end-to-end.
  • No regulated data flows (no PCI, no PHI, no EU AI Act high-risk).
  • You don't need cross-project memory of past incidents.

Add GreatCTO if

  • You ship in a regulated industry (fintech, healthcare, voice-AI, gov, …).
  • Reviews are the bottleneck β€” you want 5 specialist reviewers in parallel instead of one human + one model.
  • You want explicit gates and an audit trail (SOX, SOC 2, EU AI Act post-market monitoring).
  • You want to compound lessons across features and projects.
Receipts

Don't take my word for it.

01 Β· ARCHITECTURE

Live state machine

Every box on the diagram is a clickable link to the agent's source on GitHub.

02 Β· PROOF

One real run, full timeline

A real pipeline run walked stage by stage β€” timeline, LLM cost, e2e assertions, public artifacts.

03 Β· METHODOLOGY

94 % MTTR claim, audited

47 paired P0 incidents Β· 4 memory-miss cases documented Β· raw data under NDA.

Install

Works in Cursor today.

$ npx great-cto init
βœ“ scanning manifests…
βœ“ archetype: regulated
βœ“ adapting for: Cursor
βœ“ 83 agents ready

Free, MIT, runs locally. You pay your own LLM API. No SaaS dashboard, no telemetry by default.

Related deep-dives

More from the blog

AI

How I designed the SDLC state machine for agentic coding

Eight stages, two human gates, four memory layers. Why this exact shape, and what I tried that didn't work.

AI

Why your agent system fails: missing gates, not missing intelligence

The bottleneck in agentic SDLC isn't model quality β€” it's process governance. Here's the state machine that closes the gap.

AI

First real shipped feature with this stack β€” receipts

One run, one feature, from prompt to merged PR. Time, cost, and gate-by-gate breakdown β€” no marketing math.

AI

The MTTR -94% claim, with receipts

47 paired P0 incidents across 12 repositories. 4 honest misses. Full methodology + how to replicate the measurement in your own repo.