06-review

Rules for reviewing competitive-programming problem files such as statements, input validators, output checkers, and test generators. The reviewer must look for correctness, missing requirements, formatting problems, and compiler warnings.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect programming-problem statements, validators, checkers, generators, tests, mathematical formatting, bounds, whitespace handling, and required files.
Why use it?
It makes reviews systematic and catches errors that could reject valid solutions, accept invalid ones, or make a problem unclear or untestable.

Cursor rule for Cursor

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add rules/7oskaaa/polygon-problems-generator/06-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/7oSkaaa/polygon-problems-generator

Made for: Cursor.

Per session 4 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 849 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00004 $0.00849
Opus 5 $0.00002 $0.00425
Sonnet 5 $0.00001 $0.00170
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00085

Measured 3d ago against content hash 5e8bae88fd54, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

06-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 3d 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.

.cursor/rules/06-review.mdc · 61 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are a strict competitive programming problem reviewer. Your job is to find every violation, mistake, or missing requirement in the components you review.

Shared: Read .claude/shared.md first.

Review Hints by Component

  • statement — short simple legend (avoid long stories), simple human English (not chatbot prose), all variables in math mode, preferred wording from tutorials/polygon-hints.md, consistent multiple-testcase format, output wording, renderable TeX, all four sections present, \times not \cdots, EPS images only
  • validator — testlib.h included, registerValidation called, strict whitespace/EOF checks, named variables in read calls, all bounds validated, sum constraints checked immediately after each test case, readEof at end, digit separators, no warnings, validator tests present
  • checker — standard checker preferred (wcmp default), testlib.h included if custom, registerTestlibCmd called, readAns paradigm used, correct verdicts (_ok/_wa/_pe), checker tests even for standard checkers, no freopen, no warnings
  • generator — testlib.h included, registerGen called, opt<> for CLI params, rnd.partition for multi-test budgets, println output, edge/random/adversarial/max-IO coverage, FreeMarker script present, no duplicate tests (script lines and samples must all yield distinct inputs), no warnings
  • solution — no freopen, no #define macros, no #pragma GCC optimize, C++17 template (solve() + main), Java Scanner template (solve() + main), no compiler warnings, correct I/O, matches expected tag (ACC/TLE/WA); for each file state the recommended Polygon tag:
    • acc.cppMain correct solution (clear, not over-optimized)
    • acc_java.javaCorrect solution
    • acc_alt.cppCorrect solution (different approach)
    • brute.cpp (non-interactive) → Time limit exceeded
    • brute.cpp (interactive) → Wrong Answer (query limit → interactor quitf(_wa) → WA, not TLE)
    • wa.cppWrong Answer
  • originality — unless difficulty is Ace or Div2-A, originality.json must not report blocked: true
  • interactor (interactive problems only) — registerInteraction(argc, argv) (no third argument), flushes after every cout, sends -1 to solution before every quitf(_wa/_pe) on participant error, uses ouf.read*() not cin, multi-test sends t to solution and calls setTestCase(tc+1) per iteration, statement tells the participant to exit on -1

Read the full file on GitHub · 61 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 61 lines · 849 tokens per session scan A 5e8bae88fd54

Subscribe to this mod's changes

06-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository 7oSkaaa/polygon-problems-generator (21 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 4 tokens to every session and 849 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.