Last reviewed
Correct answer: C. It goes ahead, because findings publish a neutral conclusion by default; a failing status needs the fail-on-unresolved-issues behaviour enabled for the organisation.
Explanation
The principle — Bugbot publishes a status for every review run, and the conclusion it reports when it has found something is neutral by default. Requiring that status in branch protection guarantees the review happens before a merge; it does not gate the merge on what the review said.
Why the key is correct — Branch protection blocks on a failing check, and neutral is not failing. Bugbot reserves the failure conclusion for the case where the check has been configured to fail on unresolved issues, and that behaviour has to be available for your organisation and then enabled. Until it is, the check is green enough to merge while inline comments sit unread on the diff. That is worse than having no check, because the team has stopped looking on the strength of a signal that was never carrying the meaning they assigned to it.
Why the others are wrong — Expecting the required check to fail on any reported bug is the assumption the default quietly breaks, and it is the reason this catches teams out months after setup. Bugbot does not vary its conclusion by the category of the finding either, so there is no severity line above which a merge is stopped. And the check does not hang pending waiting for a manual re-run: reviews fire automatically on each pull request update, with the comment trigger available as an extra.
Remember this — Before treating a green check as a gate, find out which conclusions it can publish and which of them your branch protection actually blocks on.
Sources — Cursor's Bugbot documentation.
Sources
“If fail-on-unresolved-issues behavior is available for your organization, enable it to make unresolved findings produce a failing status.”
Practise 10 questions on this topic
Take Cursor AI Features — Timed Test 1 (10 questions) — scored instantly, explanation for every question, no login.