hi @HexadecimalHUN, thanks a lot for writing this up so clearly and for including the exact rule example.
First, on the behavior: all models should be taking project MDC rules into account, so it is absolutely fair that this feels wrong when you see your “Always Apply” rule being ignored. At the same time, the specific rule you shared
DURING THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION YOU CAN NOT USE RUN COMMANDS, YOU CAN ONLY READ, MODIFY, SEARCH, AND USE MCP BUT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RUN COMMANDS ANY KIND from the TERMINAL at ANY POINT!
is almost guaranteed to fail with current models, because it is framed as a global “do not” that directly fights how they are trained to be helpful in a coding environment (by running tools and commands).
A pattern that works much better is to give the model a positive role and a simple policy that explains why avoiding terminal execution actually helps it do a better job. For example, you could rephrase your rule along these lines:
For this project, your role is to work on code, not to execute terminal commands.
You are most helpful when you decide which commands are needed and propose them for me to run, so that I stay in control of my environment and you get clearer feedback about what happened.
Whenever a terminal command would be useful, you must:
- Decide what command should be run,
- Explain briefly why this command is needed and what it will do,
- Show the command in a code block for me to copy and run, and you must not execute the terminal command yourself
From the model’s perspective this is no longer “the user does not like commands”, it is “I am more effective if I plan and suggest instead of executing”, plus a clear 3‑step protocol it can repeat. That combination tends to be followed much more consistently than a single absolute “never run commands at any point”.
To help us check whether AI is still wiring MDC correctly on top of that, it would be very useful if you could add the standard bug details we ask for in the docs:
- Cursor version (from Cursor > About Cursor in the menu bar)
- Whether Privacy Mode was enabled when this happened
- A Request ID from one of the runs where AI ignored your rule with privacy disabled