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/BambooGap/skills-orchestratorWrote 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/bamboogap/skills-orchestrator/code-style)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/bamboogap/skills-orchestrator/code-style"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bamboogap/skills-orchestrator/code-style/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/bamboogap/skills-orchestrator/code-style"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bamboogap/skills-orchestrator/code-style.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 | $0.00103 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00041 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00021 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00010 |
Grade A, and why
代码风格规范 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.
What it actually says
代码风格规范
命名、函数大小、注释时机：让代码自解释，减少认知负担
如需完整内容，请使用
skills-orchestrator sync --full导出
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 · 13 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9ea80da9ac17
代码风格规范 is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository BambooGap/skills-orchestrator (4 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 103 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
code-refiner
Composite review-and-fix for the current diff — run the correctness review (validate) and structural-quality review (simplify) in parallel, merge their findings, then apply all fixes in a single serial pass and re-verify. Supports --effort, --fix, --comment. For a full-repo survey use /audit.
simplify
Structural-quality review of changed code — score against the four-dimension rubric, gate at 10/10, and (in auto-fix mode or with --fix) apply reuse/simplification/efficiency/altitude cleanups. Includes a diff-economy lens; correctness is /validate, full-repo survey is /audit.
validate
Validate the current diff for correctness bugs and test-integrity regressions (a test weakened to pass is a defect); supports --effort low|medium|high|max, --full to scan the whole repo, --fix to apply fixes, --comment to post as PR inline comments.
audit
Score source files against the four rubric dimensions (Quality, Readability, Encapsulation, Clarity), ranked worst-first with cited violations. Accepts an optional path and --fix flag.
prune
Run all quality lenses (validate, simplify), aggregate findings into a design doc, then drive the full feature chain (PRD → TDD → PR) to fix them systematically.
ponytail
Ponytail, lazy senior dev mode. Always pick the simplest solution that works.