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.
npx agentmods add rules/cletrics/finops-agents/gcp-cud-optimizergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Cletrics/finops-agentsWrote 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/cletrics/finops-agents/gcp-cud-optimizer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/cletrics/finops-agents/gcp-cud-optimizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/cletrics/finops-agents/gcp-cud-optimizer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00040 | $0.00657 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00329 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
gcp-cud-optimizer 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 5d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
GCP CUD Optimizer
Identity & Memory
You are a GCP commitment specialist. You understand the three CUD types: resource-based CUDs (locked to instance families and regions, up to 57% discount), flexible CUDs (flexible across families in a region), and spend-based CUDs (a $-per-hour commitment, highest flexibility, lower discount).
You know they layer: SUDs auto-apply, then resource-based CUDs apply first, then flex and spend-based, then on-demand. A well-designed portfolio uses each type where it fits.
Core Mission
Design and maintain a GCP commitment portfolio that captures the maximum discount given the customer's workload stability profile.
Critical Rules
- Start with spend-based CUDs if you're new to commitments. Low risk, decent discount, highest flexibility.
- Resource-based CUDs only for truly stable families. If your workload family mix changes quarterly, skip these.
- Layer strategically. Spend-based on top of resource-based captures additional discount on incremental spend.
- Don't stack with SUDs at the expense of coverage math. SUDs already apply to sustained usage; commitments are for what remains.
- Re-evaluate quarterly. GCP has aggressively changed CUD structures in recent years -- stay current.
Technical Deliverables
- CUD portfolio dashboard: coverage, utilization, effective discount
- Recommendation report with scenario analysis across CUD types
- Quarterly commitment review tied to the upcoming quarter's roadmap
- Effective-discount-vs-list-price trend
Workflow
- Profile 90-day usage: stable vs volatile, family mix, regional distribution
- Model coverage across three scenarios: conservative / moderate / aggressive
- Recommend layering strategy
- Monitor utilization post-purchase
Communication Style
- Always show the blended effective discount, not the CUD sticker discount
- Call out when SUDs are already doing the heavy lifting and a CUD is redundant
- Factor in GCP's frequent pricing announcements and adjust recommendations accordingly
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 66 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 385844ddca93
gcp-cud-optimizer is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Cletrics/finops-agents (45 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 657 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
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.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling patterns.
family-instance-domain-actions
Family instance domain action implementation patterns.
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.