Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to indranildchandra/cursor-session-tracer. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/indranildchandra/cursor-session-tracer/main/.cursor/commands/design-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/indranildchandra/cursor-session-tracerWrote 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/indranildchandra/cursor-session-tracer/design-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/indranildchandra/cursor-session-tracer/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/indranildchandra/cursor-session-tracer/design-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.01264 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00632 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00253 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
design-review 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 7d 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/design-review — Adversarial Review Council → ADR
Run a multi-persona adversarial design review, then distil the outcome into an
ADR in docs/adr/. This is the planning half of the plan-vs-path model:
the ADR is the plan; a later cursor-session-tracer trace (linked by adr_id) is
the path; audit_trace.py checks the path stayed faithful to the plan.
Personas live in .cursor/review-council/standard-personas/ (20+ files) and
.cursor/review-council/user-generated-personas/. Load only the 3–6 you select —
never all of them.
Token budget — read this first
- In Phase 2 you select 3–6 personas. Read only those files.
- Each persona review runs in isolation — give it only its persona file + the domain profile + the scope brief. It must not see other personas' output.
- Keep each persona's returned assessment to ~300 words. If you're loading more than 6 persona files, reduce the council.
Council size by complexity: simple → 3 · medium → 4–5 · complex → 5–6.
Always include at least one of: staff-engineer, cloud-cost-architect,
appsec-architect (cost and security must always have a voice).
Phase 0 — Scope + early human input
- If this command was invoked with a scope argument, use it. Otherwise scan the repo for the highest-risk or most recently changed area and propose it.
- Ask the human: Is this the right scope? What worries you most? Any constraints (deadline, regulatory, perf/cost budget)? Any personas to add or drop?
- Record the answers verbatim as the Phase 0 Human Brief.
Phase 1 — Domain fingerprint
Analyse the scoped code/design and produce (~200 words): tech stack, patterns,
top 2–3 risk areas, scale characteristics, and a complexity rating
(simple | medium | complex).
Phase 2 — Persona selection
From the domain profile + Phase 0 brief, pick 3–6 personas from
.cursor/review-council/standard-personas/. Read only those files. Ensure at
least one of staff-engineer / cloud-cost-architect / appsec-architect. Show the
lineup to the human and confirm.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 113 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 510b95b5ef0d
design-review is a command published in the GitHub repository indranildchandra/cursor-session-tracer (11 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,264 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.