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/van-file-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/van-file-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/van-file-verification/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/van-file-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/van-file-verification.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 | $0.02337 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00935 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00467 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00234 |
Grade A, and why
van-file-verification 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 2mo 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 van-file-verification — 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 — 302 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
OPTIMIZED FILE VERIFICATION SYSTEM
🚨 CRITICAL: MEMORY BANK VERIFICATION REQUIRED 🚨 Memory Bank structure MUST exist before any file operations This check MUST be executed first in all verification processes
TL;DR: This system provides a structured approach to verify file structure integrity before task implementation, with emphasis on efficient checks and clear status reporting.
🔍 FILE VERIFICATION WORKFLOW
graph TD
%% Critical Memory Bank verification - MUST be first
Start["Start File Verification"] --> MemBankCheck{"Memory Bank<br>Exists?"}
MemBankCheck -->|"No"| CreateMemBank["CREATE MEMORY BANK<br>[CRITICAL]"]
MemBankCheck -->|"Yes"| VerifyMemBankComplete["Verify Memory Bank<br>Structure Complete"]
CreateMemBank --> VerifyMemBankComplete
VerifyMemBankComplete --> PassCheck{"All Critical<br>Checks Pass?"}
PassCheck -->|"No"| AbortAll["⛔ ABORT ALL OPERATIONS<br>Fix Memory Bank First"]
PassCheck -->|"Yes"| MainVerification
%% Regular verification flow continues here
MainVerification["Start Full<br>File Verification"] --> BatchVerify["Batch Verification<br>Using Patterns"]
BatchVerify --> BrokenLinks["Check for<br>Broken References"]
BrokenLinks --> DirectoryStructure["Verify Directory<br>Structure"]
DirectoryStructure --> Status{"All Verifications<br>Successful?"}
Status -->|"Yes"| Complete["Verification<br>Complete ✓"]
Status -->|"No"| Diagnose["Diagnose<br>Issues"]
Diagnose --> Attempt{"Attempt Auto<br>Resolution?"}
Attempt -->|"Yes"| AutoFix["Auto-Fix<br>Issues"]
Attempt -->|"No"| ReportIssue["Report Issues to<br>User"]
AutoFix --> Recheck{"Issues<br>Resolved?"}
Recheck -->|"Yes"| ReportSuccess["Report Success<br>to User"]
Recheck -->|"No"| ReportIssue
ReportSuccess --> Complete
ReportIssue --> UserAction["Wait for<br>User Action"]
UserAction --> ReVerify["Re-Verify<br>After User Action"]
ReVerify --> Status
style MemBankCheck fill:#ff0000,stroke:#990000,color:white,stroke-width:3px
style CreateMemBank fill:#ff0000,stroke:#990000,color:white,stroke-width:3px
style VerifyMemBankComplete fill:#ff0000,stroke:#990000,color:white,stroke-width:3px
style PassCheck fill:#ff0000,stroke:#990000,color:white,stroke-width:3px
style AbortAll fill:#ff0000,stroke:#990000,color:white,stroke-width:3px
style Status fill:#f6546a,stroke:#c30052,color:white
style Complete fill:#10b981,stroke:#059669,color:white
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 302 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 3e36b9b7741b
van-file-verification is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository alkoleft/platform-context-exporter (49 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,337 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to van-file-verification, 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-transactions-and-locks
Guidance for using transactions and controlled locks in 1C, where a transaction groups database changes so they can be accepted or cancelled together. It also explains the order in which locks should be taken when several operations share data.