Prompts are the primary mechanism for communicating with AI agents, and they directly influence the quality and reliability of AI-generated code. As AI-assisted programming becomes widely adopted, modern tools increasingly combine dynamic conversational prompts with static configuration-like prompt files. Despite the growing focus on prompt engineering, prior research has primarily focused on conversational prompts, while prompt files remain understudied. To address this gap, we conduct an empirical study of configuration prompt files in Cursor, a widely used AI-assisted code editor. We collect and analyze over 12,110 .cursorrules files from 11,427 GitHub repositories to characterize their distribution, evolution, and maintenance. Complementing this, we perform qualitative analysis on a random sample of 65 prompt files and develop a 65-code codebook capturing how developers express programming intent, project context, engineering practices, and security considerations. Our results show that .cursorrules files emerged rapidly from mid-2024. Their adoption is concentrated in small-scale, low-activity, single-maintainer repositories, suggesting toy projects rather than professional development. The content of prompt files is dominated by guidance on code quality and engineering practices, project structure and configuration, and maintainability, while security-related content appears less frequently. Our analysis shows that there is a continuity of themes and topics between the now-legacy .cursorrules files and the current standard .mdc files.
Shuang Sun, Jafar Akhoundali, Arina Kudriavtseva et al.· Proceedings of the 21st Inte...· 1 citation· ⚡1
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and olympiad-style mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed. To bridge this gap, we introduce AdvancedMathBench, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate advanced mathematical reasoning capabilities. Its core proof-generation benchmark, ProverBench, contains 296 problems spanning undergraduate and doctoral qualifying-exam levels. To provide reliable evaluation of the proofs, we develop a dedicated automatic verification pipeline trained on large-scale expert annotations to produce both correctness verdicts and fine-grained assessments of proof errors, which exhibits strong agreement with human experts on held-out proof trajectories. We further introduce VerifierBench, consisting of 888 model-generated proof trajectories paired with expert ground truth, to evaluate whether models can correctly judge proof validity and provide sound verification rationales. Experiments show that AdvancedMathBench remains challenging for frontier models. On proof generation, the best-performing model, GPT-5.5-xhigh, achieves only 75.8 and 66.1 on the UGD and QE splits, respectively, indicating substantial room for improvement on advanced mathematical proof construction. On proof verification, the best model attains a Balanced F1 of only 65.1, and models generally exhibit low true negative rates, suggesting that critical error detection remains a major bottleneck.
Lingkai Kong, Zijian Wu, Yuzhe Gu et al.· 0 citations