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/bia-technologies/yaxunitWrote 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/bia-technologies/yaxunit/command-execution)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/command-execution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/command-execution/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/bia-technologies/yaxunit/command-execution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/command-execution.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 | $0.02228 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00891 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00446 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00223 |
Grade A, and why
command-execution 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.
Copies of this mod
4 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- command-execution — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- command-execution — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- command-execution — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- command-execution — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 235 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
COMMAND EXECUTION SYSTEM
TL;DR: This system provides guidelines for efficient command execution, balancing clarity and token optimization through appropriate command chaining, with proper documentation of commands and results.
🔍 COMMAND EFFICIENCY WORKFLOW
graph TD
Start["Command<br>Planning"] --> Analyze["Analyze Command<br>Requirements"]
Analyze --> Balance["Balance Clarity<br>vs. Efficiency"]
Balance --> Complexity{"Command<br>Complexity?"}
Complexity -->|"Simple"| Single["Execute<br>Single Command"]
Complexity -->|"Moderate"| Chain["Use Efficient<br>Command Chaining"]
Complexity -->|"Complex"| Group["Group Into<br>Logical Steps"]
Single & Chain & Group --> Verify["Verify<br>Results"]
Verify --> Document["Document<br>Command & Result"]
Document --> Next["Next<br>Command"]
📋 COMMAND CHAINING GUIDELINES
graph TD
Command["Command<br>Execution"] --> ChainApprop{"Is Chaining<br>Appropriate?"}
ChainApprop -->|"Yes"| ChainTypes["Chain<br>Types"]
ChainApprop -->|"No"| SingleCmd["Use Single<br>Commands"]
ChainTypes --> Sequential["Sequential Operations<br>cmd1 && cmd2"]
ChainTypes --> Conditional["Conditional Operations<br>cmd1 || cmd2"]
ChainTypes --> Piping["Piping<br>cmd1 | cmd2"]
ChainTypes --> Grouping["Command Grouping<br>(cmd1; cmd2)"]
Sequential & Conditional & Piping & Grouping --> Doc["Document<br>Commands & Results"]
🚦 DIRECTORY VERIFICATION WORKFLOW
graph TD
Command["Command<br>Execution"] --> DirCheck["Check Current<br>Directory"]
DirCheck --> ProjectRoot{"In Project<br>Root?"}
ProjectRoot -->|"Yes"| Execute["Execute<br>Command"]
ProjectRoot -->|"No"| Locate["Locate<br>Project Root"]
Locate --> Found{"Project Root<br>Found?"}
Found -->|"Yes"| Navigate["Navigate to<br>Project Root"]
Found -->|"No"| Error["Error: Cannot<br>Find Project Root"]
Navigate --> Execute
Execute --> Verify["Verify<br>Results"]
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 · 235 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 3f88c33ce358
command-execution is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository bia-technologies/yaxunit (340 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,228 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 2026-09-01.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
telegram-bot-tests
Test conventions for Telegram Bot library.
testing
Testing conventions for Ion Design System using Jest and Angular Testing Library.
121-java-unit-testing
Java Unit testing guidelines.
use-contract-ir-factories
Use factory functions for creating ContractIR objects instead of manual object creation.
gonavi-go
A Go coding rule set for the GoNavi repository, based on common Go style guides and the project's own conventions. It covers file structure, errors, context, concurrency, logging, and tests.
mockito
This guide provides definitive best practices for writing robust, maintainable, and readable unit tests using Mockito with JUnit 5, focusing on modern patterns and common pitfalls.