Cursor builds the Consulting Chaos minigames
Alvin Leung built Consulting Chaos during a learning day, using ChatGPT to refine the concept and Cursor Agent mode to implement it. He reports a playable Python game after a couple of hours, with feedback from three colleagues.
Original prompt
Shared by the source author. See source notes for context.
Create a typing test minigame where players type consulting jargon as fast as possible, with penalties for mistakes
Reach people exploring AI agents
See placements →Evidence at a glance
Sourced account- Source author
- Alvin Leung
- Original account
- Read the source ↗
- Published
- 29 Sept 2025
- Source link checked
- 15 Oct 2026
- Reported result
- Alvin Leung built Consulting Chaos during a learning day, using ChatGPT to refine the concept and Cursor Agent mode to implement it. He reports a playable Python game after a couple of hours, with feedback from three colleagues.
- Human involvement
- Leung designed the game, refined concepts with ChatGPT and tuned difficulty and visual details; three colleagues provided feedback.
A linked account supports attribution. It does not mean we independently reproduced its result.
Report an issue with this case
Open correction emailOpens your email app with the case link included. Nothing is sent automatically.
How the agent did it
- Refine the four consulting-themed mechanics with ChatGPT and specify a simple Python/tkinter implementation.
- Use Cursor Agent mode to build scene architecture, individual minigames, input handling and scoring.
- Iterate on penalties, difficulty and visuals, then demonstrate the playable prototype with persistent scores.
Alvin Leung built Consulting Chaos during a learning day, using ChatGPT to refine the concept and Cursor Agent mode to implement it. He reports a playable Python game after a couple of hours, with feedback from three colleagues.
The concept translated consulting frustrations into four minigames: typing jargon, quick mathematics, fitting meetings onto a grid and escaping a maze. ChatGPT helped shape the initial specification. Cursor then created a simple scene-based architecture so each game could be implemented separately and connected to a common loop.
Leung supplied requests for individual mechanics, including a typing game with penalties. The agent generated logic, state management, interface rendering, input handling and scoring. Follow-up requests adjusted difficulty and penalty behavior. The owner retained the creative decisions and tuned details such as enemy counts and puzzle blocks.
The finished prototype used Python 3.13, tkinter and JSON persistence for high scores. The reported result is a specific playable artifact, not an independently benchmarked development-speed claim. The account provides a demonstration and code link, but the small group’s favorable feedback does not establish broad usability or cross-platform reliability. Human design and gameplay refinement remained part of the process.
Prompt
Original prompt
Source: medium.com · Alvin Leung
Frequently asked questions
What did the agent do?
It generated the scene architecture and minigame implementation, then revised mechanics in response to the owner.
What remained the human’s responsibility?
Leung designed the game, refined concepts with ChatGPT and tuned difficulty and visual details; three colleagues provided feedback.
What were the four minigames?
The prototype turned consulting frustrations into jargon typing, quick mathematics, meeting-grid placement and a maze.
More details
About this account
Cursor generated scene architecture, game logic, input handling, scoring and persistent high scores, then revised mechanics in response to the owner.
Firsthand account opened and read. Outcome is source-reported, not independently reproduced. The owner designed and tuned gameplay; feedback came from only three colleagues. Original published prompt excerpt, no more than 25 words.
Credit: Alvin Leung
Source published 29 Sept 2025
Source checked 15 Oct 2026
Tools and topics
Python · tkinter · JSON · ChatGPT
Python · tkinter · JSON
Editorial completeness: 100/100. Measures documented fields, not agent performance or verified outcomes.