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/compozy/gographWrote 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/compozy/gograph/review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/compozy/gograph/review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/compozy/gograph/review-checklist/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/compozy/gograph/review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/compozy/gograph/review-checklist.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 | $0.00407 | $0.00407 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00163 | $0.00163 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00081 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
review-checklist 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
Code Review Checklist
Pre-Review Requirements
<pre_review_requirements> Before submitting code for review, ensure:
- All tests pass and follow the established testing patterns
- Code has been formatted with
go fmt - All linter warnings have been addressed
- Error handling follows project patterns
- Security considerations have been addressed </pre_review_requirements>
Review Checklist
Common Issues to Watch For
<common_issues type="code_quality">
- Missing error handling or inappropriate error propagation
- Tests that don't follow the
t.Run("Should...")pattern - Hardcoded values that should be configurable
- Missing context propagation in functions that make external calls
- Security vulnerabilities like exposed secrets or unvalidated inputs
- Performance issues like unnecessary allocations or inefficient algorithms
- Code that doesn't follow established project patterns
- Missing or inadequate test coverage </common_issues>
Review Process
<review_process>
- Focus on correctness, maintainability, and adherence to standards
- Check for proper error handling and testing patterns
- Verify security considerations have been addressed
- Ensure code follows established project patterns and conventions
- Look for opportunities to improve code clarity and efficiency </review_process>
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 · 60 lines · 407 tokens per session scan A c395f16d3dd6
review-checklist is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository compozy/gograph (9 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It adds 407 tokens to every session, about $0.0016 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
clean-code-reviewer
Eliminates technical debt using SOLID, DRY, YAGNI, and Addy Osmani production-grade engineering principles. / TR: SOLID, DRY, YAGNI ve Addy Osmani üretim seviyesi mühendislik ilkeleri ile kod kalitesini denetleyen yetenek.
sweep-benchmarks
Audit xrspatial modules for asv benchmark coverage gaps: missing benchmarks, backend parameterization gaps, unrepresentative inputs, broken or silently-skipped benchmarks.
code-review
BMAD BMM Agent: code-review.
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.