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/beardfaceguy/daimonosWrote 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/beardfaceguy/daimonos/repowise)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/beardfaceguy/daimonos/repowise"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/beardfaceguy/daimonos/repowise/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/beardfaceguy/daimonos/repowise"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/beardfaceguy/daimonos/repowise.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 | $0.00838 | $0.00838 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00335 | $0.00335 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00168 | $0.00168 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00084 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
repowise 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
This project is indexed by repowise, exposed as MCP tools. Prefer them over grep/read for orienting in unfamiliar code; fall back to reading source when the answer needs a body repowise did not retrieve.
Which tool
get_overview— first call in an unfamiliar area. Architecture, module map, entry points.get_symbol("src/file.rs::Name")— the most reliable tool here. Returns the exact body with line bounds, markedverifiedbecause it re-checks stored bounds against the live file. Use it instead of Read + offset math whenever you know the symbol name.get_context(targets)— triage card for several files/symbols in one call. Batch them; comparing three files in one call is how you spot that two were changed and the third was missed.get_answer(question)— natural-language question over the index. Good at locating the right files. Read the prose, then verify before acting on it.get_why(query)— architectural decisions and their evidence. Strong on rationale recorded in module docstrings and ADRs.search_codebase(query, kind?)— semantic search, filterable by implementation / test / config / doc.get_risk/get_change_risk/get_health/get_dead_code/get_blast_radius— hotspots, co-change partners, defect scoring on a diff, unreachable code.
Trusting the output
- The answer prints first, metadata after. Read from the top. Piping through
tailshows a later section and reads as an answer to a different question. confidence: highis not a guarantee. It reflects retrieval dominance, not correctness. Cross-check anything load-bearing against the source.- Private function bodies and dispatch functions do not reliably surface. If a question turns on the internals of a non-public fn, or on "which function decides X", expect a miss and go read the file.
- When it cannot answer it says so — "the excerpts don't include…". Treat that as reliable and read the source rather than re-prompting.
- Every response carries the indexed commit and warns when the index is behind
HEAD (
Index is behind HEAD: indexed X, now Y). If you see that, runrepowise update(~1.5s incremental) before trusting the answer.
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 · 68 lines · 838 tokens per session scan A c2854e9a3c53
repowise is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository beardfaceguy/daimonos (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 838 tokens to every session, about $0.0034 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
ponytail
Ponytail, lazy senior dev mode. Always pick the simplest solution that works.
angular-20
This rule provides comprehensive best practices and coding standards for Angular development, focusing on modern TypeScript, standalone components, signals, and performance optimizations.
dev-standard
Apache Superset development standards and guidelines for Cursor IDE.
prefer-direct-imports-over-module-mocks
Prefer extracting a testable core over vi.mock / vi.resetModules when unit tests need to reach production logic entangled with config, env, or singletons.
config-validation-and-normalization
Config validation and normalization responsibilities (defineConfig normalizes, the orm section schema validates and resolves paths, the loader reports per-section diagnostics).
control-plane-descriptors
Control plane descriptor and instance implementation patterns.