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/charles001-wong/autocode-flowWrote 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/charles001-wong/autocode-flow/autocode-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/charles001-wong/autocode-flow/autocode-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/charles001-wong/autocode-flow/autocode-workflow/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/charles001-wong/autocode-flow/autocode-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/charles001-wong/autocode-flow/autocode-workflow.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 | $0.00276 | $0.00276 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00110 | $0.00110 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00055 | $0.00055 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
autocode-workflow 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
autocode Workflow — order-service
Pipeline Order
Follow this sequence for any non-trivial change:
- Plan → Decompose the task before writing code
- TDD → Write tests that define the expected behavior
- Code → Implement the minimum to pass tests
- Test → Verify coverage meets 80%
When to Skip Steps
- Trivial fixes (typos, comment updates): skip Plan and TDD
- Documentation-only changes: skip TDD and Test
- Config changes: skip TDD, run Test to verify no breakage
Agents
Use these agents proactively:
planner— when starting a new feature or refactoringtdd-guide— when writing any new logiccode-reviewer— after completing implementation, before commit
Commands
| Command | Purpose |
|---|---|
/plan |
Create implementation plan |
/tdd |
Start TDD cycle |
/code |
Implement with standards |
/test |
Run tests and check coverage |
/deploy |
Check deployment readiness |
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 · 39 lines · 276 tokens per session scan A c1b4e204dbe4
autocode-workflow is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository charles001-wong/autocode-flow (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 276 tokens to every session, about $0.0011 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
refactoring
Refactoring: systematic approach, extract/inline, guard clauses, early returns.
testing
Testing conventions, bug fix workflow, TDD, mocking discipline, and test commands.
development
Core development practices for frontend, testing, and Python environments.
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.