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/scope-work)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/danielvm-git/bigpowers/scope-work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/danielvm-git/bigpowers/scope-work/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/scope-work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/danielvm-git/bigpowers/scope-work.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 | $0.00068 | $0.00931 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00372 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
scope-work 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
story: e03s01
story: e24s02
Scope Work
Spine position: Step 1 — scope-work → slice-tasks → plan-work.
Turn the current conversation into a bounded PRD at specs/product/SCOPE_LATEST.yaml. Without a scope boundary, implementation drifts — stories expand, estimates blow up, and "done" becomes undefined.
Pre-flight
- Do you have a clear user need or problem statement? If not, run
elaborate-specfirst. - Does
specs/product/VISION_LATEST.yamlexist? If yes, read it for north-star alignment. - Is there an existing
SCOPE_LATEST.yaml? If yes, you're refining, not creating from scratch.
Process
-
Read planning-context.yaml — If
specs/planning-context.yamlexists, read it before doing anything else:test -f specs/planning-context.yaml && echo "Context found" || echo "No context — starting fresh"Pre-populate
feature_name,constraints, andout_of_scopefrom the file. Skip re-asking questions already answered by elaborate-spec. If the file is absent, proceed normally. -
Gather context — Read existing
specs/artifacts (release-plan.yaml,plans/TECH_STACK_LATEST.md,requirements/VISION_LATEST.yamlif any). Understand what the project is building and why. -
Interview (if needed) — Clarify: What is the goal? Who are the users? What is definitely in scope? What is explicitly out of scope? What constraints exist (time, budget, tech)? How will success be measured?
-
Write
specs/product/SCOPE_LATEST.yamlwith these fields:core_value— one-sentence value propositionsummary— 2-3 paragraph scope overviewin_scope[]— list of what this initiative covers (each maps to an epic/story)out_of_scope[]— explicit exclusions (prevents scope creep)constraints— tech, time, resource boundariessuccess_criteria— observable outcomes that prove the scope is deliveredreferences— links to related specs, ADRs, or documents
-
Lightweight trade-off analysis — For each
out_of_scopeitem, note why it's excluded (deferred, not valuable, too risky, depends on external factor). This protects against "what about X?" questions later.
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 · 63 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 68dc26574b3b
scope-work is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository danielvm-git/bigpowers (267 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 931 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
payload-cms
Payload CMS: collections, fields, hooks, access control, admin UI.
monorepo
Monorepo: workspace references, shared packages, boundaries.
pnpm
PNPM: workspace monorepos, efficient package management.
ai-dev-os-ticket
Generates a ticket (local file or GitHub Issue) with implementation summary and checklist candidates derived from AI Dev OS guidelines. Used to create structured implementation tasks.
agent-workflow-orchestration
Mandatory PM-orchestrated subagent workflow — main agent is manager, no separate PM subagent.
12-new-project
Workflow for starting a new app from this template - rebranding, identity, cleanup and first feature.