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.
npx agentmods add rules/adobecom/express-milo/code-review-standardsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adobecom/express-miloWhat 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 | $0.01758 | $0.01758 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00879 | $0.00879 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00352 | $0.00352 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00176 | $0.00176 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-standards 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 2d 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
100% identical to code-review-standards — 0 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 — 221 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Express-Milo Code Review Standards
CRITICAL: Complete Rule Application Required
When conducting code reviews, you MUST check ALL of the following rules and provide the specific format outlined below.
Rules to Check (in priority order):
Priority 1 - Blocking Issues:
- core-web-vitals-standards.mdc - Performance requirements (LCP, FCP, INP, CLS)
- aem-markup-sections-blocks.mdc - Block structure, auto-blocking, author experience
- dom-structure-preservation.mdc - Never break existing DOM structure
- dom-manipulation-best-practices.mdc - createElement patterns, batching
- event-handling-performance.mdc - Memory management, cleanup patterns
- Memory Rules - No real URLs in tests, use mocks instead
Priority 2 - Performance Issues:
- lighthouse-performance-troubleshooting.mdc - LCP optimization, score debugging
- lazy-loading-implementation.mdc - IntersectionObserver requirements
- image-optimization-requirements.mdc - Responsive images, preloading
- resource-loading-strategy.mdc - Module loading, async patterns
Priority 3 - Quality Issues:
- Accessibility Standards - ARIA patterns, keyboard navigation
- Error Handling - Try/catch, lana logging
- File Size Limits - JS files < 300 lines, CSS files < 200 lines per module
Required Review Format:
Section Structure:
## 🚨 **CRITICAL ISSUES** / 🔶 **MODERATE ISSUES** / ✅ **POSITIVE ASPECTS**
### [Priority Level]. **[Issue Category] - [Brief Description]**
**Issue Description:**
[1-2 paragraph explanation of WHY this is a problem, what express-milo rule it violates, and the impact on performance/user experience/maintainability]
**How it is now:**
```[language]
// [file path and line numbers]
[actual code from the diff showing the problem]
How it should be:
// [file path] - [description of the fix]
[corrected code following express-milo patterns]
### Required Checks by File Type:
#### JavaScript Files (.js, .ts):
- ✅ Uses createTag instead of innerHTML
- ✅ Has event listener cleanup with tracked listeners
- ✅ Uses IntersectionObserver for lazy loading (non-critical blocks)
- ✅ Implements proper error handling with lana logging
- ✅ Uses DocumentFragment for batched DOM operations
- ✅ Has timeout fallbacks for reliability
- ✅ File is under 300 lines (split into modules if larger)
- ✅ Uses passive event listeners where appropriate
- ✅ Implements proper ARIA patterns from existing express-milo examples
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 221 lines · 1,758 tokens per session scan A 1c7794fc3f72
code-review-standards is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository adobecom/express-milo (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 1,758 tokens to every session, about $0.0088 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review-standards, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
angular-20
This rule provides comprehensive best practices and coding standards for Angular development, focusing on modern TypeScript, standalone components, signals, and performance optimizations.
dev-standard
Apache Superset development standards and guidelines for Cursor IDE.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling patterns.
prefer-direct-imports-over-module-mocks
Prefer extracting a testable core over vi.mock / vi.resetModules when unit tests need to reach production logic entangled with config, env, or singletons.
control-plane-descriptors
Control plane descriptor and instance implementation patterns.
family-instance-domain-actions
Family instance domain action implementation patterns.