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/workflow-level2)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/workflow-level2"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/workflow-level2/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/workflow-level2"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/alkoleft/platform-context-exporter/workflow-level2.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 | $0.02131 | $0.02131 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00852 | $0.00852 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00426 | $0.00426 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00213 | $0.00213 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-level2 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 workflow-level2 — 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 — 289 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
WORKFLOW FOR LEVEL 2 TASKS
TL;DR: This document outlines a structured yet efficient workflow for Level 2 (Simple Enhancement) tasks, including 6 key phases with milestone checkpoints and quality verification.
🔍 LEVEL 2 WORKFLOW OVERVIEW
graph LR
Init["1. INITIALIZATION"] --> Doc["2. DOCUMENTATION<br>SETUP"]
Doc --> Plan["3. TASK<br>PLANNING"]
Plan --> Impl["4. IMPLEMENTATION"]
Impl --> Reflect["5. REFLECTION"]
Reflect --> Archive["6. ARCHIVING"]
%% Document connections for each phase
Init -.-> InitDocs["INITIALIZATION"]
Doc -.-> DocDocs["DOCUMENTATION"]
Plan -.-> PlanDocs["PLANNING"]
Impl -.-> ImplDocs["IMPLEMENTATION"]
Reflect -.-> ReflectDocs["REFLECTION"]
Archive -.-> ArchiveDocs["ARCHIVING"]
Level 2 tasks involve simple enhancements that require a structured approach with moderate planning and documentation. This workflow provides the right balance of process and efficiency.
📋 WORKFLOW PHASES
Phase 1: INITIALIZATION
graph TD
Start["Start Level 2 Task"] --> Platform{"Detect<br>Platform"}
Platform --> FileCheck["Critical File<br>Verification"]
FileCheck --> LoadStructure["Load Memory<br>Bank Structure"]
LoadStructure --> TaskCreation["Create Task<br>in tasks.md"]
TaskCreation --> SetupComplete["Initialization<br>Complete"]
Steps:
- Platform detection
- Critical file verification
- Memory Bank structure loading
- Task creation in tasks.md
- Initial task scope definition
Milestone Checkpoint:
✓ INITIALIZATION CHECKPOINT
- Platform detected and configured? [YES/NO]
- Critical files verified? [YES/NO]
- Memory Bank loaded? [YES/NO]
- Task created in tasks.md? [YES/NO]
- Initial scope defined? [YES/NO]
→ If all YES: Proceed to Documentation Setup
→ If any NO: Complete initialization steps
Phase 2: DOCUMENTATION SETUP
graph TD
Start["Begin Documentation<br>Setup"] --> LoadTemplate["Load Basic<br>Documentation Templates"]
LoadTemplate --> UpdateProject["Update<br>projectbrief.md"]
UpdateProject --> UpdateContext["Update<br>activeContext.md"]
UpdateContext --> SetupComplete["Documentation<br>Setup Complete"]
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 · 289 lines · 2,131 tokens per session scan A d683e028f808
workflow-level2 is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository alkoleft/platform-context-exporter (48 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It adds 2,131 tokens to every session, about $0.0085 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to workflow-level2, 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.