Custom Modes missing in Cursor 2.1.0 (VSCode 1.105.1)

Where does the bug appear (feature/product)?

Cursor IDE

Describe the Bug

What’s happened? Are they unusable? Several best features vanished in new version… It seems it time to go to other AI IDE… Custom modes was only option to organize our work for spec driven… using Cursor Memory Bank. And what about memories? Are they unusable for agentic IDE?

Steps to Reproduce

just open cursor

Expected Behavior

Please return back custom modes and memories

Operating System

Windows 10/11

Current Cursor Version (Menu → About Cursor → Copy)

Version: 2.1.20 (system setup)
VSCode Version: 1.105.1
Commit: a8d8905b06c8da1739af6f789efd59c28ac2a680
Date: 2025-11-22T14:51:59.472Z
Electron: 37.7.0
Chromium: 138.0.7204.251
Node.js: 22.20.0
V8: 13.8.258.32-electron.0
OS: Windows_NT x64 10.0.19045

Does this stop you from using Cursor

Yes - Cursor is unusable

3 Likes

In 2.1.2 i cant find a way to add custom agent mode from the agents settings page and agent/ask dropdown in the chat

“If custom modes don’t come back, I’ll be forced to find a replacement for Cursor. It’s a real shame. Bring back custom modes!

3 Likes

Custom mode is crucial for my workflow. Without it, Cursor isn’t practical for me, and I’ll need to look for another IDE. Please, bring it back.

3 Likes

Could anyone share more about what you are using custom modes for where commands won’t fill in? In the implementation - they are very similar - custom prompts. I understand that commands miss tool customization, but we found that tool customization is very rare in custom modes, and prompting should cover a lot of cases (like very clear prompting not to edit files, if you have a custom Ask mode)

3 Likes

I’m sure you’ve read that article. It’s not that important for native tools in cursor, but when you add some MCPs on top of that, you start polluting the context for no reason, and custom modes allowed to control that. Not even talking about some MCPs you don’t want the agent to not be able to use sometimes.

I’d understand your decision to remove custom modes for the favour of commands, but only if commands could disable/enable tools/MCPs, especially MCPs. With modes, you could create a mode which would work good with an MCP(and disable edit tools, so the mode would be focused on using the MCP and reading the base), and disable the MCP in classical modes since it’s useless without instruction, now I will just have that MCP always in the mode and will see model trying to use it when it should not. (Realistically I’ll just move all MCPs outside of cursor workflows now tbh, relying less and less on native cursor features and moving my workflows elsewhere)

Another plus of custom modes was the ability to bind specific models to the mode, but that’s a small thing that’s not that important.

@andrewh I completely understand how similar commands and custom modes may seem, I can also understand how removing custom modes could ease the development and enhance the UX for some and reduce errors, however, custom modes are actually used more than commands, due simplicity and actual enhanced UX for almost everyone and better workflow compared to commands, in fact, it is very rare that users use commands due poor UX not saying they don’t but when you compare it statically and experience wise, custom modes has boosted many workflows even for beginners unlike commands

So having to mention in the prompt to use a tool and not to use a tool is less convenient, knowing how LLMs are, they will high chance use a tool you told them not to, we lost the mention of @web and the LLMs already needs a proper prompt to make them use web search (like “use web search tool“ which can be annoying and actually some users aren’t aware of that feature), so removing custom modes will make LLMs slip and forcefully use the terminal when its the least wanted tool and more users will be less aware on how to use the commands and it will introduce even more complexity

So in summary and conclusion, we wanted custom modes for simplicity and efficiency and fast workflow as not every user wants to be extremely specific in the prompts, some just want to make simple and efficient prompts while switching modes like use cases and models, not bigger prompts which could and can slow down the workflow

I hope that clears and answers everything on why and how custom modes are different

5 Likes

I need a version of ask that has access to mcp tools i select for read only use.

So i created a custom agent with only read only tools and read only mcp (deepwiki) that worked really well. This was really important to reserach good solutions without the agent going nuts and editing files.

Sometimes they still did this, but i had custom instruction that paritally stopped them from using bash to edit files.

3 Likes

Custom Modes weren’t a cosmetic feature. They were the backbone of my workflow.

I’ve spent close to $1,000 on Cursor in the past two months using it daily in production across multiple projects. My custom modes weren’t prompts for convenience—they enforced code style, architectural rules, naming conventions, and decision boundaries across large codebases. That’s what made Cursor a tool I could rely on for serious work instead of just “AI inside an editor.”

Removing this suddenly, without a migration path or even a notice, breaks real workflows. It forces me to look elsewhere because I can’t rely on a tool that changes core functionality overnight.

If the feature was experimental, it should have been version-gated or flagged as unstable, not pulled with no alternative.

For heavy users running production systems, this isn’t a minor annoyance. It makes the product unreliable.

8 Likes

@andrewh , here’s how I understand it (and please correct me if I’m wrong — I’m genuinely trying to learn too):

Custom modes weren’t just nicer prompts. They actually changed the environment the agent was working in. Rules don’t do that. That’s basically the root of why people are upset.

From what I’ve seen, you can try to solve things with multiple rules, but rules don’t remove tools — they just ask the model not to use them. And LLMs don’t always listen. If bash or some MCP is loaded, the model eventually tries to use it no matter how many “don’t do this” rules you stack on top. You can add 10 rules and the model will still slip when it gets confused or sees a chance to call a tool.

Custom modes actually disabled specific tools and MCPs. The model literally couldn’t use them even if it wanted to. That’s a completely different level of control. People used that to make read-only research modes, “no bash” modes, or MCP-specific modes where the context didn’t get polluted by a huge list of tools.

Without modes, all MCPs and tools are always visible, and for folks using multiple MCPs, that quickly becomes noisy. The model starts calling stuff at random simply because it sees the tool, not because the user wanted it.

Also, a lot of people were using modes to enforce architecture rules, naming conventions, repo-specific patterns, etc., automatically. Not by writing huge rule lists, but by having a mode that acted like a “specialized worker.” Trying to cram all of that into one global prompt with a bunch of rules just isn’t the same — the model ignores parts of it, merges other parts, forgets half of it after a few interactions.

And switching between tasks was easier too. One mode for refactors, one for documentation, one for backend work, one for read-only research, all with their own toolset and even their own preferred model. Rules and commands can’t swap models or tool availability, so you lose a lot of the control that made modes reliable.

So yeah, when someone asks “why not just use multiple rules?” — I think the answer is basically: rules don’t actually change what the agent can do, only what you tell it to do. Custom modes changed the actual sandbox.

Again, this is just my understanding based on how me and other people were using the feature.

7 Likes

After installing latest update, I can’t find my custom agents which I dedicated quite a lot of my time creating it.

I can’t imagine how much of work should I spend recreating those.. almost every process of my development was included in those agents.

please return my precious custom agents , cursor team..

6 Likes

Custom modes had terrible UI and configuration, so I never really got into them despite ambitious plans.

I recently switched to Claude Code for task delegation. It’s cleaner and easy to manage, every setting stored in plain text file. Now delegation is as simple as calling single-word alias.

Not sure if switching to CC was in Cursor Team’s plan, but that’s where it led - to better solution.

1 Like

Hey, just a heads-up: According to the changelog, Custom Modes have been removed in this version.

The ‘Export’ feature mentioned in the updates is only there so you can retrieve your old prompts/instructions to save them. The intended replacement for Custom Modes are now either /command Commands, .cursor/rules file or project-specific rules. You can’t add new Custom Modes in the settings anymore.

My personal advice: I have replaced all my Custom Modes with Plan Agent Mode + Cursor(rules) – works much cleaner and better.

3 Likes

The ask mode jumps into the agent mode and start reading none-sense files, for those who are working on larger projects vibe/agent mode does not work.

2 Likes

Its unbelievable that Cursor dev team has decided to remove ‘custom modes’ after the paying community already went through the previous pain of having ‘Manual’ mode removed and you can recall the amount of pushback that got, and I wonder how many of those users have since moved onto other LLM powered IDE’s. ‘Custom modes’ was brought in to address that issue and gave the user the power to decide how they wanted their LLM interaction to flow, just re-read all the posts in there and you will soon recall the use cases for manual mode and its successor ‘custom modes’ 'Manual mode' missing

Its seems to me that Cursor prefers a full agentic flow with all tools and capabilities on as default instead of allowing the users to make those decisions, does ‘Agent’ mode generate more income for Cursor? I have been paying for and using Cursor for my personal use for 2 years and I also use it at work under an enterprise license, and so to now see such a key feature removed is astonishing, given the impact to users workflows.

While I do like to often use ‘Agent’ mode if I am in a hurry (and since the add to context feature got dumbed down), I also often use a custom ‘Manual’ mode whenever the ‘Agent’ mode struggles with a task, or goes off the rails using tools and shell commands which actually makes the LLM response worse/unexpected than when I switch to ‘Manual’ mode and give it the full file context and allow only edit/apply permissions. So having the ability to use both ‘Agent’ and ‘Manual’ modes allows me to fix an issue that sometimes the ‘Agent’ mode gets stuck trying to solve. TBH i am also not so happy that Cursor 2.0 made it harder to add context to a chat, as often now right clicking a project file to add to chat doesnt always work (agent or manual mode), and this was a very useful usability feature before, and so just seems like the same MO of Cursor to keep driving everything towards pure ‘Agent’ modes when these LLM’s have the capability to work with ‘Agent’ and ‘Manual’ modes (again i refer to the use cases in this and the previous linked chat threads).

This should be a long-term feature, and not just BETA, and then suddenly deleted without even a message or a chance for this paying community to vote, who makes these architectural decisions at Cursor, someone that actually uses ‘custom modes’ i take it not, and not an LLM that’s for sure, it wouldnt allow something as myopic as this to take place!
Please bring back ‘custom modes’ and improve it further for this paying community (we arent just niche), as when company’s dont listen to their customers, they could just become one of those blips in the history of Ai, that get lost to the annals of time, as other Ai IDE’s come on to the scene.

7 Likes

Going back to version 2.0, I hope they bring it back or at least allow the tools to be customized in the next version; otherwise, I will have to look for another ide.

5 Likes

Bring back Custom Mode. This feature is necessary for working with development standards. Why was it removed? How did it interfere?

4 Likes

Please feel free to open a thread in Feature Requests

1 Like

I just did

2 Likes

Last week, I demoed the custom agents to our team. I explained how effective they were and how much they helped. My lead asked me to create some custom agents for different coding standards and release procedures, so I built some truly awesome ones. I showed him how we could just say, “triage all errors in prod over the last hour,” and minutes later, we’d have a PR ready to fix those errors, pending review. It was a mind-blowing moment—everyone was super stoked. Now I have to go to a meeting and tell them it was all just a huge waste of time because some dumbass decided to remove the feature. :man_facepalming:

Do you know if this mistake is going to be fixed, and if so, when? Or should I start looking for an alternative? :thinking: I heard Google has a new IDE.

7 Likes