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/danielvm-git/bigpowersWrote 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/danielvm-git/bigpowers/respond-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/danielvm-git/bigpowers/respond-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/danielvm-git/bigpowers/respond-review/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/danielvm-git/bigpowers/respond-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/danielvm-git/bigpowers/respond-review.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00499 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00200 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
respond-review 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
Respond Review
HARD GATE — HARD GATE — Every reviewer comment must be addressed (fix, disagree + document reason, or ask clarification). Do NOT ignore feedback and merge.
Work through reviewer findings systematically. Don't apply changes blindly — categorize first, then decide, then fix, then verify.
Process
1. Read the full review report
Read every finding before acting on any of them. Get the full picture first.
2. Categorize findings
For each finding, assign a category:
| Category | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| must-fix | Correctness bug, security issue, test failure, CONVENTIONS.md violation | Fix before proceeding |
| should-fix | Code quality issue, naming, clarity — worth fixing but not blocking | Fix if time allows |
| consider | Architectural suggestion, alternative approach — may or may not apply | Discuss with user |
Create a numbered list of all findings with their categories.
3. Confirm with user (for consider-category items)
For each "consider" item, briefly describe the trade-off and ask: "Apply, skip, or discuss?"
4. Apply must-fix items first
Fix every must-fix item. For each one:
- Describe what you're changing and why
- Make the change
- Run the verify command if one exists for this area
5. Apply should-fix items
Apply should-fix items. If any are large enough to warrant their own commit, note them separately.
6. Run the full suite
After all changes are applied:
<full test command>
<typecheck command>
<lint command>
- All tests pass
- No type errors
- No lint violations
7. Report
Summarize what was applied and what was skipped:
Applied (must-fix): #1, #2, #3
Applied (should-fix): #4
Skipped (consider): #5 — agreed with user to defer
All tests pass.
Suggest next skill: commit-message.
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 · 71 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 9837c774a760
respond-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository danielvm-git/bigpowers (267 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 499 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
clean-code
Apply language-agnostic clean-code discipline to all code writing, editing, reviewing, testing, and refactoring, including file placement, single responsibility, and verified completion.
boffin-post-change-audit
Pre-flight review and post-change kernel audit.
refactoring
Refactoring: systematic approach, extract/inline, guard clauses, early returns.
new-pull-request
Use this rule when requested to review a pull request.
ai-security-review
Rule Name: ai-security-review Description: Perform security review for any code that handles user input, authentication, database queries, or external API calls. Filters.
ai-code-review
Rule Name: ai-code-review Description: Always review code for security, performance, correctness, and maintainability before submitting. Filters.