Ask what entered the codebase, where it came from, and which permissions or notices still need review. Do not treat generated code, a privacy setting, or a paid tool account as proof that every component is cleared for your intended use.
Keep privacy and provenance separate
Cursor documents prompts and code context being sent to model providers. With Privacy Mode enabled, Cursor says code is not used for training by Cursor or other AI model providers. Its documentation also describes temporary encrypted repository storage for Cloud Agents during a run, followed by deletion after completion.
These statements concern data handling. They do not establish licensing rights for generated output, dependencies, or copied snippets. As editorial advice, maintain a provenance review separately from the privacy review. Questions about rights should go to the responsible reviewer; this article is not legal advice.
Complete a code-provenance review card
For each introduced component, record:
- Identity: file, function, package, and version where applicable.
- Introduction route: generated suggestion, dependency installation, or intentional reuse.
- Claimed origin: supplied source information, or “unknown” if none is established.
- Accompanying material: licence text, notices, attribution instructions, or missing records.
- Intended use: internal prototype, public service, redistribution, or another planned context.
- Open question: what permission or obligation needs clarification?
- Decision owner: who can accept, replace, or escalate the component?
Do not fill an unknown origin with a confident guess from a model. Similar-looking code is a reason to investigate, not sufficient evidence of a particular source or permission status.
Hypothetical three-component review
Imagine a Nagpur team reviewing a fictional appointment prototype. It contains a generated date helper, a newly added package called example-calendar-lib, and a formatter deliberately copied from a tutorial.
The package name is fictional. For the helper, record that provenance is unresolved rather than declaring it original. For the dependency, request the exact version and accompanying licence material. For the copied formatter, ask who supplied it and what reuse terms were recorded.
Evaluate the packet by whether each component has traceable records and a named decision owner. A working build does not resolve missing permissions. If replacing a component is proposed, retain the review record so the replacement can be checked independently.
Stop distribution when a material question is unresolved
Pause the affected distribution decision if a material component has unresolved permissions or missing required review. Next, obtain appropriate review, replace the component with a reviewed alternative, or narrow the prototype's scope.
If purchasing development access, inspect the coding catalog for access format and saved terms before buying. Marketplace account/code/token offers are not proof of official subscription equivalence or rights to generated code.
Sources and scope
Source material checked 29 October 2026; features/policies may change. Cursor privacy and data governance establishes documented data handling, not code licensing rights. The review card and fictional components are editorial prompts for investigation, not legal conclusions.