Agents In Use
What’s new todayLast update
— use cases added today

Cursor expands newsletter notes with content research

Harshit Jain describes a Cursor workflow that expanded raw notes into the newsletter announcing the workflow itself. He saved his thinking in a text file, then used local scripts and external research to prepare a content package in his writing style.

FROM THE SOURCE

Original prompt

Shared by the source author. See source notes for context.

I was being lazy around writing my newsletter

Evidence at a glance

Sourced account
Source author
Harshit Jain
Original account
Read the source ↗
Published
25 Aug 2025
Source link checked
15 Oct 2026
Reported result
Harshit Jain describes a Cursor workflow that expanded raw notes into the newsletter announcing the workflow itself. He saved his thinking in a text file, then used local scripts and external research to prepare a content package in his writing style.
Human involvement
Jain supplied raw notes and prior writing as context and could edit, refine and publish the generated content.

A linked account supports attribution. It does not mean we independently reproduced its result.

Report an issue with this caseOpen correction email

Opens your email app with the case link included. Nothing is sent automatically.

How the agent did it

  1. Save raw thinking as a text file in the Cursor workspace.
  2. Gather LinkedIn and newsletter material with Selenium, feed parsing and Python analysis.
  3. Generate content using the author’s existing posts as style context, then edit and publish the newsletter example.

Harshit Jain describes a Cursor workflow that expanded raw notes into the newsletter announcing the workflow itself. He saved his thinking in a text file, then used local scripts and external research to prepare a content package in his writing style.

The setup combines Python content analysis, Selenium browser automation for LinkedIn and newsletter feed parsing. It gathers marketing material, examines content structures and uses more than thirty-two of Jain’s own LinkedIn posts as style context. The source describes generated newsletter, LinkedIn and Twitter outputs stored in organized folders and pushed to Git.

For the published example, Jain says a short thought about avoiding newsletter writing became the piece readers were viewing. He could edit and refine generated material before publication. The account supplies a concrete output and the collection-to-writing sequence, but does not show an accuracy evaluation, an originality assessment or measured engagement attributable to the system.

The claimed ability to sound exactly like the author is a subjective judgment. The useful result is a repeatable research and drafting workspace that produced a published example. It should not be read as evidence that an agent automatically published every package or that predictions about engagement were validated.

Prompt
Original prompt

Source: newsletter.qback.ai · Harshit Jain

Frequently asked questions

What did the agent do?

It combined local notes with LinkedIn and newsletter research to produce content drafts in the configured style.

What remained the human’s responsibility?

Jain supplied raw notes and prior writing as context and could edit, refine and publish the generated content.

Was a resulting newsletter published?

Yes. Jain identifies the article announcing the workflow as an output developed from his raw notes; engagement predictions were not independently measured.

More details

About this account

Cursor’s workflow gathered LinkedIn and newsletter material, analyzed style context and expanded the owner’s notes into content drafts.

Firsthand account opened and read. Outcome is source-reported, not independently reproduced. Style similarity and engagement predictions are not independently evaluated. Original published prompt excerpt, no more than 25 words.

Credit: Harshit Jain

Source published 25 Aug 2025

Source checked 15 Oct 2026

Tools and topics

Python · Selenium · Feed parsing · Git

Python · Selenium · Feed parsing

Editorial completeness: 100/100. Measures documented fields, not agent performance or verified outcomes.