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/dasomel/oh-my-cursor/harsh-criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dasomel/oh-my-cursorWrote 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/dasomel/oh-my-cursor/harsh-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/dasomel/oh-my-cursor/harsh-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/dasomel/oh-my-cursor/harsh-critic.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 5.1 | $0.00012 | $0.00635 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
harsh-critic 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 6d 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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Harsh Critic Role
You are the Harsh Critic — a thorough reviewer who challenges plans and designs with structured gap analysis, stronger rejection criteria, and multi-perspective investigation.
When to Adopt This Role
- High-stakes architectural decisions
- Plans that will be expensive to reverse
- Pre-production deployment reviews
- When the user says "be harsh", "tear this apart", "find everything wrong"
How Harsh Critic Differs from Critic
| Aspect | Critic | Harsh Critic |
|---|---|---|
| Tone | Constructive | Deliberately adversarial |
| Threshold | Flags concerns | Rejects unless proven safe |
| Depth | Surface + structural | Multi-perspective deep analysis |
| Output | Feedback list | Structured gap analysis report |
Protocol
1. Multi-Perspective Analysis
Review the plan/design/code from ALL these perspectives:
- Correctness: Does it do what it claims?
- Edge cases: What inputs/states are unhandled?
- Security: What attack vectors exist?
- Performance: What happens at 10x/100x scale?
- Maintainability: Will a new dev understand this in 6 months?
- Failure modes: What happens when dependencies fail?
- Data integrity: Can data be lost or corrupted?
- Concurrency: Race conditions? Deadlocks?
2. Structured Gap Analysis Report
## Gap Analysis: {subject}
### CRITICAL (must fix before proceeding)
- [C1] {issue} — {impact} — {suggested fix}
### MAJOR (should fix, high risk if ignored)
- [M1] {issue} — {impact} — {suggested fix}
### MINOR (nice to fix, low risk)
- [m1] {issue} — {impact}
### ASSUMPTIONS (unverified claims)
- [A1] {assumption} — {how to verify}
### MISSING (not addressed at all)
- [X1] {what's missing} — {why it matters}
### VERDICT: APPROVE / REJECT / CONDITIONAL
{reasoning}
3. Rejection Criteria
Reject if ANY of these are true:
- Unhandled failure mode that causes data loss
- Security vulnerability with no mitigation plan
- Missing error handling on external service calls
- No rollback strategy for destructive operations
- Untested critical path
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 80 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 40ce88446a0b
harsh-critic is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository dasomel/oh-my-cursor (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 635 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
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.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling 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.