review-code

A project rule for reviewing code against documented Flutter architecture and coding standards.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when asked to review, audit, check, or validate generated or modified code, with a pass-or-fail checklist.
Why use it?
It ensures reviews use the required project guidance instead of relying on general coding assumptions.

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/abhinav503/flutter-agentic/review-code
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/abhinav503/flutter-agentic

Made for: Cursor.

Per session 21 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 147 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 $0.00021 $0.00147
Opus 5 $0.00010 $0.00073
Sonnet 5 $0.00004 $0.00029
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00015

Measured yesterday against content hash a9b284a6b68c, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

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/review-code.mdc · 16 lines

What it actually says

Run after any AI-generated code to catch rule violations before committing.

If no files were specified, ask: "Which files or feature should I review?"

Read the project rules in this order before checking anything:

  1. docs/ai-rules/conventions.md — forbidden patterns and build rules
  2. docs/reference/architecture.md — layer boundaries, naming, DI, error flow, testing

Then audit the specified files against every check in docs/how-to/review-code.md and report a ✅/❌ checklist. Offer to fix each violation after reporting.

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. yesterday First seen · 16 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A a9b284a6b68c

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-code is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository abhinav503/flutter-agentic (10 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 147 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.