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/Farzannajipour/cursor-react-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/commands/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/review-code/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/commands/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/review-code.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00642 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00257 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
review-code 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 1mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Code
Overview
Comprehensive code review checklist to ensure quality, security, and maintainability.
Review Categories
1. Functionality
- Code does what it's supposed to do
- Edge cases are handled
- Error handling is appropriate
- No obvious bugs or logic errors
- Loading and error states work correctly
2. Code Quality
- Code is readable and well-structured
- Functions are small and focused (<50 lines)
- Components are reasonable size (<200 lines)
- Variable names are descriptive
- No code duplication
- Follows project conventions
- Complex logic has comments
3. TypeScript
- All props have interfaces
- No 'any' types (use 'unknown' if needed)
- Return types defined for functions
- Proper type inference used
- Exported types when shared
4. React Best Practices
- Functional components used
- Proper hook usage (no violations of rules)
- Keys provided for list items
- No inline functions in JSX (use useCallback)
- Memoization used appropriately
- Server Components used when possible (Next.js)
5. Next.js Specific (if applicable)
- Server Components used by default
- 'use client' only when necessary
- Metadata properly defined
- Images use next/image
- Loading and error UI provided
- Proper caching strategy
6. Styling
- Tailwind CSS used consistently
- Responsive design implemented
- Dark mode support (if required)
- No inline styles (use Tailwind)
7. Security
- No obvious security vulnerabilities
- Input validation present
- Sensitive data handled properly
- No hardcoded secrets
- XSS prevention in place
8. Accessibility
- Semantic HTML used
- ARIA labels where needed
- Keyboard navigation works
- Proper color contrast
- Focus states visible
9. Performance
- No unnecessary re-renders
- Large lists virtualized (if needed)
- Images optimized
- Code splitting implemented
- Bundle size considered
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 98 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 3c6c3f80ca4c
review-code is a command published in the GitHub repository Farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules (3 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 642 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.