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/HKTITAN/cursor-best-practicesWrote 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/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/docs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/docs/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/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/docs.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 | $0.00241 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00096 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00048 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00024 |
Grade A, and why
docs 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.
What it actually says
Generate or update documentation for the code I've @-mentioned (or the current feature/area we're working on).
Steps
-
Identify scope
- Use @-mentioned files, or the focus of our conversation (e.g. new API, refactored module).
- Determine what kind of docs are needed: API reference, README section, inline JSDoc/docstrings, architecture overview, runbook, etc.
-
Draft or update docs
- Follow existing project style (e.g. JSDoc, TSDoc, Sphinx, rustdoc).
- Include: purpose, usage, parameters/returns, examples, and any caveats or migration notes.
- If updating, preserve existing structure where it still applies; revise only what changed.
-
Place docs appropriately
- Inline (comments, JSDoc) for implementation details.
- README or
docs/for user-facing or high-level guides. - Link between docs if relevant.
Rules
- Match the project's existing doc format and tone.
- Apply project rules from
.cursor/rulesorAGENTS.md(e.g. doc conventions).
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 · 23 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 24b7e90aac72
docs is a command published in the GitHub repository HKTITAN/cursor-best-practices (7 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 241 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
commit-msg
Cursor tooling: skills, rules, subagents.
handle-pr-comments
Fetch all PR comments, classify by severity, and present for user approval before acting.
self-review
Review only changed files in this branch Your primary goal is to provide valuable, trustworthy feedback while avoiding false positives and low-impact commentary.
create-pr
Commit changes and create a PR with proper formatting.
back-to-master-delete-branch
Cleanup current branch and switch to default branch with latest changes.
optimize-cursor-context
Analyze my Cursor base context and suggest optimizations.