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/implementation-intermediate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/implementation-intermediate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/implementation-intermediate/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/implementation-intermediate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/implementation-intermediate.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 | $0.01147 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00459 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
implementation-intermediate 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 implementation-intermediate — 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
LEVEL 3 IMPLEMENTATION: BUILDING INTERMEDIATE FEATURES
TL;DR: This guide focuses on the systematic implementation of a planned and designed Level 3 feature. It emphasizes modular development, strict adherence to creative decisions and the style guide, integration with existing systems, and thorough feature-specific testing.
🛠️ Level 3 Feature Implementation Workflow
This workflow outlines the typical steps for building an intermediate feature.
graph TD
StartImpl["Start L3 Implementation"] -->
ReviewDocs["1. Review All Relevant Docs<br>(Tasks, Creative Docs, Style Guide)"] -->
SetupEnv["2. Setup/Verify Dev Environment<br>(Branch, Tools, Dependencies)"] -->
ModuleBreakdown["3. Break Down Feature into Modules/Major Components<br>(Based on plan in `tasks.md`)"] -->
BuildIterate["4. Implement Modules/Components Iteratively"]
BuildIterate --> ImplementModule["4a. Select Next Module/Component"]
ImplementModule --> CodeModule["4b. Code Module<br>(Adhere to design, style guide, coding standards)"]
CodeModule --> UnitTests["4c. Write & Pass Unit Tests"]
UnitTests --> SelfReview["4d. Self-Review/Code Linting"]
SelfReview --> MoreModules{"4e. More Modules<br>for this Feature?"}
MoreModules -- Yes --> ImplementModule
MoreModules -- No --> IntegrateModules["5. Integrate All Feature Modules/Components"]
IntegrateModules --> IntegrationTesting["6. Perform Integration Testing<br>(Feature modules + existing system parts)"]
IntegrationTesting --> E2EFeatureTesting["7. End-to-End Feature Testing<br>(Validate against user stories & requirements)"]
E2EFeatureTesting --> AccessibilityCheck["8. Accessibility & Responsiveness Check<br>(If UI is involved)"]
AccessibilityCheck --> CodeCleanup["9. Code Cleanup & Refinement"]
CodeCleanup --> UpdateMB["10. Update Memory Bank<br>(`tasks.md` sub-tasks, `progress.md` details)"]
UpdateMB --> FinalFeatureReview["11. Final Feature Review (Conceptual Peer Review if possible)"]
FinalFeatureReview --> ImplementationDone["L3 Implementation Complete<br>Ready for REFLECT Mode"]
style StartImpl fill:#e57373,stroke:#f44336
style BuildIterate fill:#ffcdd2,stroke:#ef9a9a
style ImplementationDone fill:#ef9a9a,stroke:#e57373
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 · 73 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9d80a36079f7
implementation-intermediate 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 1,147 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to implementation-intermediate, 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.