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/briangmilnes/APAS-VERUSWrote 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/briangmilnes/apas-verus/failed-experiments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/briangmilnes/apas-verus/failed-experiments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/briangmilnes/apas-verus/failed-experiments/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/briangmilnes/apas-verus/failed-experiments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/briangmilnes/apas-verus/failed-experiments.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 | $0.00196 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00078 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00039 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00020 |
Grade A, and why
failed-experiments 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.
What it actually says
Failed Experiments
When an experiment file fails verification:
- DO NOT modify it to pass (no adding
assume, no commenting out failing assertions) - DO NOT remove dead code — failed attempts stay as documentation
- DO add a
RESULT: FAILScomment at the top explaining what fails - DO comment out the module in
lib.rsso the project validates
Failed experiments are valuable documentation of what Verus cannot (yet) do.
Example
//! Proof time test: Does X work?
//! RESULT: FAILS - assertion on line 30 cannot be proven
// ... original failing code unchanged ...
In lib.rs:
// pub mod experiment_that_fails; // FAILS - see file header
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 · 32 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5ee397dc1c5f
failed-experiments is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository briangmilnes/APAS-VERUS (10 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 196 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 2026-08-31.
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-assertions-over-defensive-checks
Prefer assertions over defensive checks when data is guaranteed to be valid.
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).