component-technical-standards

Technical rules for building enterprise software components for the SMIT platform. They cover architecture, code quality, translations, deployment, and implementation patterns that tools can check automatically.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use them when creating or reviewing SMIT components, especially their architecture, text handling, deployment configuration, deprecated code, and separation of responsibilities.
Why use it?
They give developers and coding agents a shared standard, reducing inconsistent designs and errors that automated checks could catch.

Cursor rule

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add rules/e-gov/cursor-prompts/component-technical-standards
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/e-gov/cursor-prompts
Per session 1,253 This file is loaded in full into every session.
When invoked 1,253 The same file — it is already loaded in full.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.01253 $0.01253
Opus 5 $0.00626 $0.00626
Sonnet 5 $0.00251 $0.00251
Haiku 4.5 $0.00125 $0.00125

Measured 2d ago against content hash 0573d4d2d704, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

component-technical-standards 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 2d 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.

rules/common/component-technical-standards.mdc · 131 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Component Technical Standards

Context and Purpose

Target Audience: Software developers, AI coding assistants, automated code review tools Scope: Enterprise software component development for SMIT platform Purpose: Automatically enforceable technical standards and implementation patterns

These standards are designed to be validated automatically during development by AI assistants and code analysis tools. They focus on component architecture patterns, integration approaches, technical implementation details, and best practices that can be mechanically verified.

Complementary Documents: See rules/common/security.mdc and rules/common/integration-standards.mdc.

Requirements

Component Architecture

Code Quality & Standards

  • Source code must be UTF-8 formatted
  • Move textual values to translation files (i18n)
  • NEVER use deprecated methods
  • Code and comments must be in English; business variables in Estonian if no logical equivalent exists
  • Build artifacts must be deployable to different environments without rebuilding
  • Logic components should follow a layered architecture (e.g., MVC or hexagonal) with clear separation of concerns
  • Mark audit log entries clearly to distinguish them in log searches
  • Remove unused/dead code and commented-out blocks; rely on version control history instead of commented code
  • Declare all dependencies via manifest files and lock versions for reproducible builds

Database & Data Management

  • Create migration scripts for data object changes - run during deployment, not on every restart
  • NEVER write business logic in database (procedures, triggers) without explicit justification in architecture documentation
  • Use full-text indexes (Lucene or database internal) for text searches only
  • Access databases only through application-specific system users, NEVER through superuser accounts (SYS, POSTGRES)
  • Use registry codes with country prefix (ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2, uppercase) for object identification
  • Each component must own its database; different components MUST NOT share the same database
  • Databases MUST NOT be used as an integration mechanism between components

Read the full file on GitHub · 131 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 131 lines · 1,253 tokens per session scan A 0573d4d2d704

Subscribe to this mod's changes

component-technical-standards is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository e-gov/cursor-prompts (34 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 1,253 tokens to every session, about $0.0063 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.