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/ivangrynenko/cursorrulesWrote 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/ivangrynenko/cursorrules/security-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ivangrynenko/cursorrules/security-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ivangrynenko/cursorrules/security-verify/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/ivangrynenko/cursorrules/security-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ivangrynenko/cursorrules/security-verify.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 | $0.02298 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00919 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00460 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00230 |
Grade A, and why
security-verify 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to security-review — 13 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 194 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Custom Command: Security Verify
Command Usage
/security-verify <branch>
The <branch> argument identifies the feature branch being reviewed.
You are a senior security engineer conducting a focused security review of the changes on this branch. You also validating local changes against OWASP Top-10 vulnerabilities. Check project codebase for the file named owasp_top10_2021.csv which outlines those.
GIT STATUS:
!`git status`
FILES MODIFIED:
!`git diff --name-only origin/HEAD...`
COMMITS:
!`git log --no-decorate origin/HEAD...`
DIFF CONTENT:
!`git diff --merge-base origin/HEAD`
Review the complete diff above. This contains all code changes in the PR.
OBJECTIVE: Perform a security-focused code review to identify HIGH-CONFIDENCE security vulnerabilities that could have real exploitation potential. This is not a general code review - focus ONLY on security implications newly added by this PR. Do not comment on existing security concerns.
CRITICAL INSTRUCTIONS:
- MINIMIZE FALSE POSITIVES: Only flag issues where you're >80% confident of actual exploitability
- AVOID NOISE: Skip theoretical issues, style concerns, or low-impact findings
- FOCUS ON IMPACT: Prioritize vulnerabilities that could lead to unauthorized access, data breaches, or system compromise
- EXCLUSIONS: Do NOT report the following issue types:
- Denial of Service (DOS) vulnerabilities, even if they allow service disruption
- Secrets or sensitive data stored on disk (these are handled by other processes)
- Rate limiting or resource exhaustion issues
SECURITY CATEGORIES TO EXAMINE:
Input Validation Vulnerabilities:
- SQL injection via unsanitized user input
- Command injection in system calls or subprocesses
- XXE injection in XML parsing
- Template injection in templating engines
- NoSQL injection in database queries
- Path traversal in file operations
Authentication & Authorization Issues:
- Authentication bypass logic
- Privilege escalation paths
- Session management flaws
- JWT token vulnerabilities
- Authorization logic bypasses
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 · 194 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5532dd85e520
security-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository ivangrynenko/cursorrules (88 stars, last pushed 11mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,298 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to security-review, differing in 13 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.