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/phased-implementation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/phased-implementation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/phased-implementation/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/phased-implementation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/phased-implementation.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 | $0.04833 | $0.04833 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.01933 | $0.01933 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00967 | $0.00967 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00483 | $0.00483 |
Grade A, and why
phased-implementation 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 phased-implementation — 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 — 655 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION FOR LEVEL 4 TASKS
TL;DR: This document outlines a structured phased implementation approach for Level 4 (Complex System) tasks, ensuring controlled, incremental delivery of complex systems with appropriate verification at each phase.
🔍 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
Level 4 Complex System tasks require a controlled, incremental approach to implementation to manage complexity, reduce risk, and ensure quality. This document outlines a phased implementation methodology that divides complex system development into discrete, verifiable phases with clear entry and exit criteria.
flowchart TD
classDef phase fill:#f9d77e,stroke:#d9b95c,color:#000
classDef artifact fill:#f4b8c4,stroke:#d498a4,color:#000
classDef verification fill:#c5e8b7,stroke:#a5c897,color:#000
Start([Begin Implementation<br>Process]) --> Framework[Establish Implementation<br>Framework]
Framework --> Plan[Create Phasing<br>Plan]
Plan --> Foundation[Implement<br>Foundation Phase]
Foundation --> VerifyF{Foundation<br>Verification}
VerifyF -->|Pass| Core[Implement<br>Core Phase]
VerifyF -->|Fail| ReviseF[Revise<br>Foundation]
ReviseF --> VerifyF
Core --> VerifyC{Core<br>Verification}
VerifyC -->|Pass| Extension[Implement<br>Extension Phase]
VerifyC -->|Fail| ReviseC[Revise<br>Core]
ReviseC --> VerifyC
Extension --> VerifyE{Extension<br>Verification}
VerifyE -->|Pass| Integration[Implement<br>Integration Phase]
VerifyE -->|Fail| ReviseE[Revise<br>Extension]
ReviseE --> VerifyE
Integration --> VerifyI{Integration<br>Verification}
VerifyI -->|Pass| Finalization[Implement<br>Finalization Phase]
VerifyI -->|Fail| ReviseI[Revise<br>Integration]
ReviseI --> VerifyI
Finalization --> VerifyFin{Finalization<br>Verification}
VerifyFin -->|Pass| Complete([Implementation<br>Complete])
VerifyFin -->|Fail| ReviseFin[Revise<br>Finalization]
ReviseFin --> VerifyFin
Framework -.-> IF((Implementation<br>Framework))
Plan -.-> PP((Phasing<br>Plan))
Foundation -.-> FP((Foundation<br>Phase))
Core -.-> CP((Core<br>Phase))
Extension -.-> EP((Extension<br>Phase))
Integration -.-> IP((Integration<br>Phase))
Finalization -.-> FiP((Finalization<br>Phase))
class Start,Complete milestone
class Framework,Plan,Foundation,Core,Extension,Integration,Finalization,ReviseF,ReviseC,ReviseE,ReviseI,ReviseFin step
class VerifyF,VerifyC,VerifyE,VerifyI,VerifyFin verification
class IF,PP,FP,CP,EP,IP,FiP artifact
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 · 655 lines · 4,833 tokens per session scan A 4298bb88b5c9
phased-implementation is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository alkoleft/platform-context-exporter (48 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It adds 4,833 tokens to every session, about $0.0193 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to phased-implementation, 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.