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/adonai-labs/agent-runwayWrote 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/rules/adonai-labs/agent-runway/code-convention)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/adonai-labs/agent-runway/code-convention"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/adonai-labs/agent-runway/code-convention/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/rules/adonai-labs/agent-runway/code-convention"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/adonai-labs/agent-runway/code-convention.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 | $0.02866 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01146 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00573 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00287 |
Grade A, and why
code-convention 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 299 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When I ask "code convention" (or similar), do all of the following:
- Run existing lint command first
npm run lint
This uses your existing ESLint v9+ configuration with flat config.
- Run focused code convention analysis
Since your existing lint command may not cover all convention rules, run additional checks:
# Check for naming convention violations
npx eslint --format json . --rule '@typescript-eslint/naming-convention: ["error", {"selector": "variable", "format": ["camelCase"]}, {"selector": "variable", "modifiers": ["const"], "format": ["UPPER_CASE"]}, {"selector": "enum", "format": ["PascalCase"]}, {"selector": "function", "format": ["camelCase"]}, {"selector": ["class", "interface"], "format": ["PascalCase"]}]'
# Check for any usage
npx eslint --format json . --rule '@typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any: error'
# Check for missing JSDoc on complex functions
npx eslint --format json . --rule 'require-jsdoc: ["error", {"require": {"FunctionDeclaration": true, "ClassDeclaration": true}}]'
# Check for React hooks violations
npx eslint --format json . --rule 'react-hooks/exhaustive-deps: error'
# Check for performance issues
npx eslint --format json . --rule 'react-hooks/rules-of-hooks: error'
- Analyze results and classify violations
For each reported message, tag it as:
| Tag | ESLint rule | Weight | Rule Source |
|---|---|---|---|
naming |
@typescript-eslint/naming-convention | -1 point | @react.mdc, @typescript.mdc |
any |
@typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any | -2 points | @typescript.mdc |
missing-comment |
require-jsdoc | -1 point | @typescript.mdc |
react-hooks |
react-hooks/* | -1 point | @react.mdc |
react-refresh |
react-refresh/* | -1 point | @react.mdc |
performance |
Performance-related | -0.5 point | @performance.mdc |
architecture |
SOLID principles | -1 point | @solid-principles.mdc |
- Calculate enhanced score (optimized for React + TypeScript)
Start at 10
-2 for each use of `any` (Critical)
-1 for each naming violation (Major)
-1 for each missing-comment violation (Major)
-1 for each React hooks violation (Major)
-1 for each React refresh violation (Major)
-1 for each architecture violation (Major)
-0.5 for each performance issue (Minor)
-0.1 for each style violation (Info)
+0.5 for excellent JSDoc documentation (Bonus)
+0.5 for advanced TypeScript patterns (Bonus)
+0.5 for performance optimizations (Bonus)
+0.5 for accessibility compliance (Bonus)
Floor at 1, cap at 10
- Output enhanced Markdown report
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 · 299 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 916a35cba8d3
code-convention is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository adonai-labs/agent-runway (2 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,866 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
optimize-dry-solid-principles-cursorrules-prompt-f
Cursor rules for optimization development with DRY and SOLID principles integration.
code-optimization
Guidelines for optimizing duplicate and poorly structured code.
language-agnostic-patterns
Language-agnostic programming patterns: SOLID, design patterns, clean code, and architecture. Load when refactoring, designing abstractions, or reviewing structure — not for everyday syntax.
code-review-en
Code Review Guidelines (English).
agent-master
Meta-orchestrator that classifies tasks and routes to the right combination of installed skills across caveman (output compression), superpowers (dev workflow), anthropic-skills (business/domain expertise), and wired tactical libraries (wshobson, davila7, impeccable, anthropic-official). 26 routing categories…
ai-dev-os-review
Performs a comprehensive self-review before creating a PR. Combines guideline compliance checking (L3) with design-level review (L2) and philosophical alignment (L1). Unlike @ai-dev-os-check which only checks rules, this also evaluates architecture decisions and code design quality.