Review repository authorization separately when Cloud Agent work finishes. Cursor's statement about deleting temporary repository copies after completion is not evidence that every related access permission has been withdrawn.
Separate storage closure from authorization
Cursor documents that Cloud Agents require repository access. It says they store encrypted repository copies temporarily while the agent runs and delete those copies after completion.
That is a bounded provider statement about temporary copies. The supplied evidence does not establish that completion automatically revokes repository authorization. Avoid claiming either that authorization definitely persists or that it definitely disappears; verify the relevant access arrangements separately.
This distinction is especially useful when an Indian agency closes a short engagement but keeps the broader project running under a different operator.
Create an access-review record
For each completed task, record:
- Task identifier, repository reference and completion date.
- Person accountable for repository access decisions.
- Business purpose that originally justified access.
- Authorization mechanism and scope, marked unknown if not verified.
- Whether another approved task still needs that scope.
- Decision to retain, narrow or remove access, with responsible operator.
- Evidence of the completed decision and next review date.
Include a separate line headed “Provider temporary-copy statement”. Reference Cursor's documented handling there rather than marking it as an independently observed deletion event.
Do not put tokens, private repository contents or customer screenshots into the record. A sanitised identifier and an accountable evidence reference should be enough for coordination.
Walk through a hypothetical closure
Imagine a hypothetical Kochi team finishes a Cloud Agent task against a repository containing only synthetic sample code. Two follow-up items exist: reviewing the proposed changes and preparing a later documentation task.
The reviewer asks whether either activity still requires the same authorization. “We might need it later” is not a bounded purpose. If the later task is not approved, record that uncertainty and assign a decision deadline rather than allowing indefinite access by default.
Evaluate closure through two independent questions: Has the task been marked complete for operational purposes? Has a repository owner accepted the authorization decision? Neither answer should be inferred solely from the provider's storage statement.
Stop incomplete offboarding
Stop calling the engagement closed if nobody can identify the repository access owner or explain the remaining scope. Next, have the authorised owner verify the access arrangement and record a least-necessary decision using their normal controls. This article does not prescribe undocumented revocation steps.
If replacement access is being purchased, inspect the AI tools catalog, check access format and save terms before buying. Marketplace account, code or token offers do not prove official subscription equivalence or repository authorization ownership.
Sources and scope
Source material checked 29 October 2026; features/policies may change. Cursor privacy and data governance establishes repository access requirements and stated temporary-copy handling. The access-review record and closure criteria are editorial advice, not claims about automatic revocation.