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/implement-mode-map)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/implement-mode-map"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/implement-mode-map/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/implement-mode-map"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/implement-mode-map.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 | $0.02613 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01045 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00523 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00261 |
Grade A, and why
implement-mode-map 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:
- implement-mode-map — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- implement-mode-map — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- implement-mode-map — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- implement-mode-map — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 321 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
BUILD MODE: CODE EXECUTION PROCESS MAP
TL;DR: This visual map guides the BUILD mode process, focusing on efficient code implementation based on the planning and creative phases, with proper command execution and progress tracking.
🧭 BUILD MODE PROCESS FLOW
graph TD
Start["START BUILD MODE"] --> ReadDocs["Read Reference Documents<br>Core/command-execution.md"]
%% Initialization
ReadDocs --> CheckLevel{"Determine<br>Complexity Level<br>from tasks.md"}
%% Level 1 Implementation
CheckLevel -->|"Level 1<br>Quick Bug Fix"| L1Process["LEVEL 1 PROCESS<br>Level1/quick-bug-workflow.md"]
L1Process --> L1Review["Review Bug<br>Report"]
L1Review --> L1Examine["Examine<br>Relevant Code"]
L1Examine --> L1Fix["Implement<br>Targeted Fix"]
L1Fix --> L1Test["Test<br>Fix"]
L1Test --> L1Update["Update<br>tasks.md"]
%% Level 2 Implementation
CheckLevel -->|"Level 2<br>Simple Enhancement"| L2Process["LEVEL 2 PROCESS<br>Level2/enhancement-workflow.md"]
L2Process --> L2Review["Review Build<br>Plan"]
L2Review --> L2Examine["Examine Relevant<br>Code Areas"]
L2Examine --> L2Implement["Implement Changes<br>Sequentially"]
L2Implement --> L2Test["Test<br>Changes"]
L2Test --> L2Update["Update<br>tasks.md"]
%% Level 3-4 Implementation
CheckLevel -->|"Level 3-4<br>Feature/System"| L34Process["LEVEL 3-4 PROCESS<br>Level3/feature-workflow.md<br>Level4/system-workflow.md"]
L34Process --> L34Review["Review Plan &<br>Creative Decisions"]
L34Review --> L34Phase{"Creative Phase<br>Documents<br>Complete?"}
L34Phase -->|"No"| L34Error["ERROR:<br>Return to CREATIVE Mode"]
L34Phase -->|"Yes"| L34DirSetup["Create Directory<br>Structure"]
L34DirSetup --> L34VerifyDirs["VERIFY Directories<br>Created Successfully"]
L34VerifyDirs --> L34Implementation["Build<br>Phase"]
%% Implementation Phases
L34Implementation --> L34Phase1["Phase 1<br>Build"]
L34Phase1 --> L34VerifyFiles["VERIFY Files<br>Created Successfully"]
L34VerifyFiles --> L34Test1["Test<br>Phase 1"]
L34Test1 --> L34Document1["Document<br>Phase 1"]
L34Document1 --> L34Next1{"Next<br>Phase?"}
L34Next1 -->|"Yes"| L34Implementation
L34Next1 -->|"No"| L34Integration["Integration<br>Testing"]
L34Integration --> L34Document["Document<br>Integration Points"]
L34Document --> L34Update["Update<br>tasks.md"]
%% Command Execution
L1Fix & L2Implement & L34Phase1 --> CommandExec["COMMAND EXECUTION<br>Core/command-execution.md"]
CommandExec --> DocCommands["Document Commands<br>& Results"]
%% Completion & Transition
L1Update & L2Update & L34Update --> VerifyComplete["Verify Build<br>Complete"]
VerifyComplete --> UpdateProgress["Update progress.md<br>with Status"]
UpdateProgress --> Transition["NEXT MODE:<br>REFLECT MODE"]
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 · 321 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A fce8bda07239
implement-mode-map 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 2,613 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.