In this field rebranding/rebadging things is very common. Cursor is no stranger, they tried to pass off Kimi 2.5 as their own awhile ago.

Pass off? They fine tuned ann open model and were very clear and public about it.

For Composer 2 they got called out on it and only acknowledged after enough criticism.

Here is a link to Lee Robinson saying they will do better to be more transparent with future releases.

> Agree with the feedback we should have mentioned the base up front, we will do that for the next model!

https://x.com/leerob/status/2035073197561745579

No they were not. Especially if you were an end user, you wouldn't have been able to tell it wasn't their own model. That exactly isn't being clear nor public.

CTRL+F "kimi" 0 results

https://cursor.com/blog/composer-2

Ah our miscommunication here is because I was thinking of Composer 2.5, which does. Good point and that's good to know.

https://cursor.com/blog/composer-2-5

If you read the status page:

> This incident affected: Automations, Review Agents, Cloud Agents, and Origin.

Cursor has built a code review bot (https://cursor.com/bugbot) which integrates with Github similar to Greptile/Coderabbit. Origin has a feature which imports existing github repos to onboard new users. Automation and cloud agents is self explanatory.