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/workflow-level1)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/workflow-level1"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/workflow-level1/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/workflow-level1"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/workflow-level1.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 | $0.01306 | $0.01306 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00522 | $0.00522 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00261 | $0.00261 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00131 | $0.00131 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-level1 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
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- workflow-level1 — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- workflow-level1 — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- workflow-level1 — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 190 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
STREAMLINED WORKFLOW FOR LEVEL 1 TASKS
TL;DR: This document outlines a streamlined workflow for Level 1 (Quick Bug Fix) tasks, focusing on efficient problem resolution with minimal overhead while maintaining adequate documentation.
🔍 LEVEL 1 WORKFLOW OVERVIEW
graph LR
Init["1. INITIALIZATION"] --> Impl["2. IMPLEMENTATION"]
Impl --> Doc["3. DOCUMENTATION"]
%% Document connections for each phase
Init -.-> InitDocs["Quick setup<br>Issue understanding"]
Impl -.-> ImplDocs["Focused fix<br>Verify resolution"]
Doc -.-> DocDocs["Document solution<br>Update tracking"]
📋 WORKFLOW PHASES
Phase 1: INITIALIZATION
graph TD
Start["Start Level 1 Task"] --> Identify["Identify<br>Issue"]
Identify --> Understand["Understand<br>Problem"]
Understand --> Setup["Quick<br>Environment Setup"]
Setup --> TaskEntry["Create Quick<br>Task Entry"]
TaskEntry --> InitComplete["Initialization<br>Complete"]
Steps:
- Identify the specific issue to fix
- Understand the problem and its impact
- Set up environment for quick fix
- Create minimal task entry in tasks.md
Milestone Checkpoint:
✓ INITIALIZATION CHECKPOINT
- Issue clearly identified? [YES/NO]
- Problem understood? [YES/NO]
- Environment set up? [YES/NO]
- Task entry created? [YES/NO]
→ If all YES: Proceed to Implementation
→ If any NO: Complete initialization steps
Phase 2: IMPLEMENTATION
graph TD
Start["Begin<br>Implementation"] --> Locate["Locate<br>Issue Source"]
Locate --> Develop["Develop<br>Fix"]
Develop --> Test["Test<br>Solution"]
Test --> Verify["Verify<br>Resolution"]
Verify --> ImplComplete["Implementation<br>Complete"]
Steps:
- Locate the source of the issue
- Develop a targeted fix
- Test the solution thoroughly
- Verify that the issue is resolved
Milestone Checkpoint:
✓ IMPLEMENTATION CHECKPOINT
- Issue source located? [YES/NO]
- Fix developed? [YES/NO]
- Solution tested? [YES/NO]
- Resolution verified? [YES/NO]
→ If all YES: Proceed to Documentation
→ If any NO: Complete implementation steps
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 · 190 lines · 1,306 tokens per session scan A c290baa0e451
workflow-level1 is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository bia-technologies/yaxunit (339 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 1,306 tokens to every session, about $0.0052 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 2026-09-01.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
running-tests
How to run tests, check for failures, and rerun specific failing tests — use the :agent variants of slow commands.
telegram-bot-tests
Test conventions for Telegram Bot library.
debug
Bug diagnosis and fixing standards - root cause analysis, minimal fixes, regression tests.
project-conventions
Core project conventions for the Uniqlo Sales Alerter.
005-code-quality
Logging, error envelopes, testing coverage, performance conventions.
monitor-debug-shm
DEBUG /dev/shm full-message mirror — security, gating, and tests.