How to Use Traycer Plans with Cursor and Claude Code

Used alone, Traycer gives you a plan. The real value shows up when that plan drives a coding agent. This guide is for developers already running Cursor or Claude Code who want fewer half-finished diffs and less re-prompting.

Why split planning from execution?

Because the two jobs want different behaviour. Planning wants breadth and caution; execution wants narrow, correct edits. When one agent does both, it rushes the plan to get to the code. Separating them gives the plan a review gate before anything is written.

How do you hand a plan to Cursor?

1. Approve the Traycer plan and copy the current step, not the whole plan.
2. Paste that single step into Cursor with the files it names attached as context.
3. Have Cursor make the smallest change that satisfies the step.
4. Review the diff, run tests, then move to the next step.

One step per agent turn is the rule that keeps diffs reviewable. Feeding the whole plan at once reintroduces the sprawl you were avoiding.

How does this work with Claude Code?

• Keep a step list in a scratch file and reference it as you go.
• Let Claude Code run commands for a step, but commit after each one.
• When a step reveals a missing dependency, update the Traycer plan rather than improvising.

Committing per step means a bad move is one revert away, not a hunt through a tangled branch.

Where does the workflow break?

Two places. First, stale plans: if the codebase moved since the scan, the steps point at files that changed, so re-scan after a merge. Second, over-planning small tasks — a two-line fix does not need four phases. Match the planning depth to the change size.

Does it replace code review?

No. A plan confirms you are building the right thing in a sane order. It says nothing about whether the finished code is correct, secure, or styled to your repo. Keep human review at the end; the plan only shrinks how much there is to review.

Quick Summary

• Use Traycer as the planner and Cursor or Claude Code as the executor.
• Hand over one approved step at a time, with the named files as context.
• Commit per step so a bad change is easy to revert.
• Re-scan the plan after a merge; plans go stale as code moves.
• The plan does not replace code review — it only reduces the review surface.