Cursor Software Engineer (New Grad) Interview Experience
Cursor · Entry level · Software Engineer
They basically gave me access to part of their codebase and were like, "Figure it out, see anything you want to build, and just build it." For eight hours I worked out of a Slack group, then presented the feature at the end of the day.
Interview process
The whole process felt way more startup-y than normal. First was a 45 minute informal chat where he went through my background, asked why Cursor, and was very candid about the company and pace. Then I had a 60 minute repo-based coding round where I implemented a hash tree they actually use, and I was allowed to use Google, GPT, and Cursor for targeted syntax help. The final was the most unusual part: an 8 to 9 hour remote onsite where they gave me part of the codebase, a Slack channel, and asked me to figure it out, build a feature autonomously, and present it. They told me they're still figuring out what new grad hiring even looks like, so the process felt unconventional and a little vague, but also much more like real work than the standard interview loop.
Interview rounds · 3
- 1
Recruiter screen
BehavioralI started with a 45 minute informal chat with the hiring manager, not a recruiter. It felt vibe-based. He walked through my resume, asked why I wanted Cursor, and was pretty candid about the company and how they work.
Q1. Can you walk me through your background and previous experience?
How they answeredHe dug through my resume and I walked through my past internships and projects, mostly focusing on what I had actually built and how I worked. It did not feel scripted at all. We even talked about things outside of Cursor, so it felt more like a real conversation and a fit check than a formal screen.
Q2. Why Cursor, and what are your future plans?
How they answeredI talked through why I wanted to join Cursor specifically, what I wanted in my next role, and my near-term plans around finishing school. He gave me a lot of advice during this too, which made it feel like there was basically no recruiter layer. He was also pretty upfront about the company being flat, fast-growing, and intense.
Follow-up questions- When are you graduating?
- What are your plans around school?
- 2
Technical round
CodingData Structures & AlgorithmsTechnicalArtificial IntelligenceThe second round was a 60 minute coding interview, but not inside a shared editor. They sent me a repo, I cloned it locally, and I worked inside that. The whole thing felt much more practical than a normal coding screen.
Q1. Can you implement this hash tree in the repo?
How they answeredThey gave me a repo to clone and said this is actually used in their product. The core logic was still algorithmic, but the setup felt real because I had to deal with file reading and actual repo context, not just a blank prompt. I shared my screen the whole time and could use Google, GPT, and Cursor for targeted syntax help, but I had to say what I was looking up first. They cared more about my engineering choices than perfect syntax or super polished code.
Follow-up questions- If you need to look up syntax, tell me before you search anything.
- 3
Final / onsite round
Project DiscussionSystem DesignTechnicalArtificial IntelligenceThe final was an 8 to 9 hour remote onsite with a kickoff, a Slack channel, a mid-day check-in, and then a 30 minute presentation at the end. They gave me access to a small slice of the codebase, not everything, and wanted to see how autonomously I could work. It was the most unusual interview I have done and felt the closest to actually working there.
Q1. Here is part of our codebase. Figure it out, choose something you want to build, and present it at the end of the day.
How they answeredI explored a few backend services, mostly around how they connect to different APIs and models, and picked an add-on to one existing service. My goal was to show I could find a place to create value, scope it tightly, and ship something reasonable in a day. I used the docs, READMEs, and AI tools first, then only asked in Slack when it was something niche to their codebase. In the presentation I explained the scope, why I chose it, and why I thought it would actually improve the product.
Follow-up questions- How did you scope the feature?
- Why did you choose that feature?
- Why did you add onto this existing service?
- Why would this make a difference?
Q2. Why did you implement it this way?
How they answeredThis was the harder part. They pushed on every engineering choice, especially when I used something new instead of only following what already existed in the codebase. I had to justify why a certain service or method made sense, what the upside was, and what trade-offs I was making. My read was they know AI can help people code fast, so they were really testing whether I understood why I made each decision.
Follow-up questions- Why use this service?
- Is that already in our codebase?
- If this is new, what are the benefits and trade-offs?
Tips from the candidate
If I were prepping again, I would not just grind LeetCode and call it a day. That helped for the initial technical round, but the final was much more about whether I could jump into an unfamiliar repo, scope something reasonable, use AI tools well, and explain my trade-offs. I would practice by finding open source repos that match their stack or the kinds of features Cursor builds, give myself 30 to 60 minutes to understand the codebase, then 2 to 3 hours to scope and build a small feature. I would also be careful about asking for help the right way: use docs, README files, and AI tools first, then ask only when it is really specific to their setup. Biggest thing is just be ready to be surprised and stay on your feet.
Company culture
My read is they are hiring like a fast-moving startup, not a mature company. For this process, there was basically no recruiter layer, just a hiring manager who was very open about the pace, long hours, and the fact that people may work weekends. The org felt flat, energetic, and spontaneous, with people trying to ship updates every day or two, and the interviews matched that because they focused on autonomy, initiative, and whether they would actually want to work with me. It also seemed like they are mostly staffed with senior engineers right now and only recently experimenting with mid-level and entry-level hiring. The other big thing is they are one of the only companies I have seen actually let candidates use AI tools the way engineers would use them on the job.