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/alkoleft/platform-context-exporterWrote 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/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/implement-mode-map)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/implement-mode-map"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/implement-mode-map/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/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/implement-mode-map"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/implement-mode-map.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 | $0.02613 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01045 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00523 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00261 |
Grade A, and why
implement-mode-map 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to implement-mode-map — 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 — 321 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
BUILD MODE: CODE EXECUTION PROCESS MAP
TL;DR: This visual map guides the BUILD mode process, focusing on efficient code implementation based on the planning and creative phases, with proper command execution and progress tracking.
🧭 BUILD MODE PROCESS FLOW
graph TD
Start["START BUILD MODE"] --> ReadDocs["Read Reference Documents<br>Core/command-execution.md"]
%% Initialization
ReadDocs --> CheckLevel{"Determine<br>Complexity Level<br>from tasks.md"}
%% Level 1 Implementation
CheckLevel -->|"Level 1<br>Quick Bug Fix"| L1Process["LEVEL 1 PROCESS<br>Level1/quick-bug-workflow.md"]
L1Process --> L1Review["Review Bug<br>Report"]
L1Review --> L1Examine["Examine<br>Relevant Code"]
L1Examine --> L1Fix["Implement<br>Targeted Fix"]
L1Fix --> L1Test["Test<br>Fix"]
L1Test --> L1Update["Update<br>tasks.md"]
%% Level 2 Implementation
CheckLevel -->|"Level 2<br>Simple Enhancement"| L2Process["LEVEL 2 PROCESS<br>Level2/enhancement-workflow.md"]
L2Process --> L2Review["Review Build<br>Plan"]
L2Review --> L2Examine["Examine Relevant<br>Code Areas"]
L2Examine --> L2Implement["Implement Changes<br>Sequentially"]
L2Implement --> L2Test["Test<br>Changes"]
L2Test --> L2Update["Update<br>tasks.md"]
%% Level 3-4 Implementation
CheckLevel -->|"Level 3-4<br>Feature/System"| L34Process["LEVEL 3-4 PROCESS<br>Level3/feature-workflow.md<br>Level4/system-workflow.md"]
L34Process --> L34Review["Review Plan &<br>Creative Decisions"]
L34Review --> L34Phase{"Creative Phase<br>Documents<br>Complete?"}
L34Phase -->|"No"| L34Error["ERROR:<br>Return to CREATIVE Mode"]
L34Phase -->|"Yes"| L34DirSetup["Create Directory<br>Structure"]
L34DirSetup --> L34VerifyDirs["VERIFY Directories<br>Created Successfully"]
L34VerifyDirs --> L34Implementation["Build<br>Phase"]
%% Implementation Phases
L34Implementation --> L34Phase1["Phase 1<br>Build"]
L34Phase1 --> L34VerifyFiles["VERIFY Files<br>Created Successfully"]
L34VerifyFiles --> L34Test1["Test<br>Phase 1"]
L34Test1 --> L34Document1["Document<br>Phase 1"]
L34Document1 --> L34Next1{"Next<br>Phase?"}
L34Next1 -->|"Yes"| L34Implementation
L34Next1 -->|"No"| L34Integration["Integration<br>Testing"]
L34Integration --> L34Document["Document<br>Integration Points"]
L34Document --> L34Update["Update<br>tasks.md"]
%% Command Execution
L1Fix & L2Implement & L34Phase1 --> CommandExec["COMMAND EXECUTION<br>Core/command-execution.md"]
CommandExec --> DocCommands["Document Commands<br>& Results"]
%% Completion & Transition
L1Update & L2Update & L34Update --> VerifyComplete["Verify Build<br>Complete"]
VerifyComplete --> UpdateProgress["Update progress.md<br>with Status"]
UpdateProgress --> Transition["NEXT MODE:<br>REFLECT MODE"]
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 · 321 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A fce8bda07239
implement-mode-map is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository alkoleft/platform-context-exporter (48 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,613 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to implement-mode-map, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
1c-coding-standards
Coding standards for BSL, the programming language used by the 1C business software platform. They cover naming, method documentation, database queries, collections, client-server code, and performance practices.
code-review-checklist
A code-review checklist for 1C source files, including BSL and OS files. It groups findings by severity and checks issues such as security, performance, errors, access control, duplication, and maintainability.
bsl-ssl
A set of rules for developing 1C applications built on БСП, the Russian-language Standard Subsystems Library. It tells developers when to reuse library functionality, how to mark changes, and how to handle outdated objects.
1c-mdo-integrity
Rules for keeping 1C EDT MDO files structurally valid. MDO files describe configuration objects, and the rules cover unique identifiers and valid links between objects.
1c-report-direct-query
A 1C reporting rule that runs the report query directly instead of using the standard data-composition engine (СКД). It then displays or exports the returned table manually.
1c-skd-two-pass-preprocessing
A two-pass method for changing 1C report output before detailed records are combined into grouped totals. 1C's report system, СКД, builds reports by grouping and summarizing data.