Agent treated “push here, pull there” like a git lecture instead of just committing

Discussions
,
1

I asked Cursor to hide three portal menu items except for a special admin login. It edited the files on this PC.

Later I said the live site wasn’t updated and asked if I needed to commit and push. Then I asked if the uncommitted changes were already pushed.

The agent answered like this:

  • Uncommitted files cannot be pushed
  • Git only sends commits
  • Push goes to GitHub, the live server has to pull
  • I never said the words “commit and push,” so it explained instead of doing it

That sounded like it could not push my work. I was not asking for a git class. My model is one sentence: I push here and I pull there.

When I finally said “commit and push,” it committed, pushed to GitHub, and the working tree was clean. That is all I wanted from this machine. The live site still needs the pull on the server. Fine. That part is obvious.

What I want from the agent: if the work is only local and I am talking about the live site, commit and push. Don’t tell me git “can’t” send uncommitted files as if that is a refusal. Don’t argue about whether I used the magic phrase. Don’t mix “not on GitHub yet” with “I am not allowed to push.”

What the agent actually did

  1. Implemented the menu restriction locally (never committed until I ordered it).
  2. When I asked if it was pushed: explained git mechanics instead of committing.
  3. When I said commit and push: committed a349e63 and pushed main to GitHub. That part worked.