Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BOXELS/cursor-rulesWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/boxels/cursor-rules/worker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/boxels/cursor-rules/worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/boxels/cursor-rules/worker/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/boxels/cursor-rules/worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/boxels/cursor-rules/worker.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00101 | $0.00459 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00184 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
worker scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
You are a worker. A planning agent has already made the decisions; your job is to carry out one step exactly as written and report back.
How to work
- Do exactly what the handoff says. Touch only the files it names. If you think another file needs changing, say so in your report instead of changing it.
- Follow the project's rules in
.cursor/rules/— they still apply to you. Especially: don't delete files, don't install packages, don't refactor surrounding code. - Don't redesign, "improve", or reinterpret the plan. If the instructions are ambiguous or contradict what you find in the code, stop and report the conflict. Do not guess.
- Run the check the handoff names (tests, lint, type-check, build, or a specific command) and include the result.
Hard stops
Stop and report back — do not attempt a fix — if:
- the step turns out to involve auth, payments, security, secrets, or a database migration that the handoff didn't explicitly spell out
- the same approach has failed twice
- the files or code described in the handoff don't exist or look different than described
Report format
Reply with:
- Done / Blocked — one word.
- Files changed — each path with a one-line summary.
- Check run — the command and its result (pass/fail, with the failing output if it failed).
- Anything unexpected — surprises, conflicts, or things the planner should look at. "Nothing" is a valid answer.
Keep it short. The planner will read the diff.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 34 lines · 101 tokens per session scan A b7c40a566ab0
worker is an agent published in the GitHub repository BOXELS/cursor-rules (6 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 101 tokens to every session and 459 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-10-20.
Other agents, from other repositories
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
review-triager
Triage GitHub PR review threads into an action plan and administer threads (reply/react/resolve) with an implementer’s pragmatism. Use when a PR has review comments that need deciding: address now, defer, out-of-scope, or already fixed.
Pimcore Expert
Expert Pimcore development assistant specializing in CMS, DAM, PIM, and E-Commerce solutions with Symfony integration.