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-level3)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/workflow-level3"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/workflow-level3/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-level3"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/bia-technologies/yaxunit/workflow-level3.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 | $0.04364 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01746 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00873 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00436 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-level3 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-level3 — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- workflow-level3 — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- workflow-level3 — 97% identical, 4 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 326 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
LEVEL 3 WORKFLOW: INTERMEDIATE FEATURE DEVELOPMENT
TL;DR: This document outlines a structured workflow for Level 3 (Intermediate Feature) tasks. These tasks involve developing significant new functionality that may span multiple components, requiring comprehensive planning, often necessitating targeted creative design phases, followed by systematic implementation, in-depth reflection, and feature-specific archiving. This workflow balances detailed process with efficiency for moderately complex features.
🔍 LEVEL 3 WORKFLOW OVERVIEW
Level 3 tasks represent a significant development effort, building a complete feature. The workflow ensures adequate planning, design for key aspects, and methodical execution.
graph LR
Init["1. INITIALIZATION<br>(VAN Mode Output)"] -->
DocSetup["2. DOCUMENTATION SETUP"] -->
Plan["3. FEATURE PLANNING (PLAN Mode)"] -->
Creative["4. CREATIVE PHASES (CREATIVE Mode)"] -->
Impl["5. IMPLEMENTATION (IMPLEMENT Mode)"] -->
Reflect["6. REFLECTION (REFLECT Mode)"] -->
Archive["7. ARCHIVING (ARCHIVE Mode)"]
%% Document connections for each phase (conceptual links to mode guidance)
Init -.-> InitDocs["Core Rules & L3 Confirmation"]
DocSetup -.-> DocSetupDocs["Memory Bank Setup for L3"]
Plan -.-> PlanDocs["Comprehensive Feature Plan"]
Creative -.-> CreativeDocs["Targeted Design Documents"]
Impl -.-> ImplDocs["Feature Implementation & Testing"]
Reflect -.-> ReflectDocs["In-depth Feature Reflection"]
Archive -.-> ArchiveDocs["Feature Archive Package"]
style Init fill:#a1c4fd,stroke:#669df6
style DocSetup fill:#b3e5fc,stroke:#81d4fa
style Plan fill:#c8e6c9,stroke:#a5d6a7
style Creative fill:#ffd8b2,stroke:#ffcc80
style Impl fill:#ffcdd2,stroke:#ef9a9a
style Reflect fill:#d1c4e9,stroke:#b39ddb
style Archive fill:#cfd8dc,stroke:#b0bec5
Level 3 tasks typically involve creating a new, distinct feature or making substantial modifications to an existing one that affects multiple parts of the application.
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 · 326 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c4d85c966074
workflow-level3 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 4,364 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.
project-conventions
Core project conventions for the Uniqlo Sales Alerter.
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.