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/security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/adonai-labs/agent-runway/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/adonai-labs/agent-runway/security/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/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/adonai-labs/agent-runway/security.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 | $0.01426 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00143 |
Grade A, and why
security 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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Guidelines
Directives for secure coding. Apply when handling input, identity, secrets, or sensitive data.
Input Validation
- Validate all caller-supplied data at the boundary — type, format, range, and length
- Reject invalid input explicitly; do not sanitise and proceed
- Use schema validation (e.g. Zod, FluentValidation) for structured input
- Enforce length limits to prevent buffer overflow and DoS
- Validate file uploads: type allowlist, size limits, and content inspection
- Validate URLs before use: allowlist scheme and host; reject
file://,localhost, internal IPs
Parameterised queries only:
-- Good: parameterised
SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1
-- Bad: string concatenation
SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${id}'
Authentication
- Verify identity before checking permissions; never allow partial or anonymous access to sensitive operations
- Hash passwords with bcrypt (salt rounds ≥ 12) or Argon2; never store plaintext
- JWT: use short expiry (≤ 15 min for access tokens); validate issuer, audience, and expiry; use strong secret
- Prefer refresh tokens for session extension; store securely (httpOnly, secure, SameSite)
- Enable MFA for privileged or sensitive operations
- Implement rate limiting on login and password-reset endpoints
- Use constant-time comparison for tokens and secrets
Authorisation
- Authorise at the resource level; verify the authenticated user may access the specific resource requested
- Do not rely only on role checks; verify resource ownership in business logic
- Default to deny; require explicit grant for elevated access
- Missing authorisation on one endpoint is an access control failure
- Implement RBAC with least privilege; map roles to permissions explicitly
Data Protection
- Encrypt sensitive data at rest (AES-256-GCM) and in transit (TLS 1.2+)
- Use platform-provided crypto; never implement custom algorithms
- Never use MD5 or SHA-1 for security purposes; use SHA-256 or higher
- Store keys in a secrets manager; inject at runtime; rotate on compromise
- Enforce HSTS for web applications
- Use secure defaults: restrict CORS, disable debug in production
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 · 166 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 30d0aed22ae9
security 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 1,426 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.