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/eliornl/rolemuleWrote 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/eliornl/rolemule/codeql-security-scanning)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/eliornl/rolemule/codeql-security-scanning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/eliornl/rolemule/codeql-security-scanning/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/eliornl/rolemule/codeql-security-scanning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/eliornl/rolemule/codeql-security-scanning.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 | $0.01338 | $0.01338 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00535 | $0.00535 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00268 | $0.00268 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00134 | $0.00134 |
Grade A, and why
codeql-security-scanning 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CodeQL & Security Scanning
CI gates (GitHub Actions)
| Workflow | Job | Command / scope |
|---|---|---|
ci.yml |
Lint (ruff) | ruff check . — must pass before push |
ci.yml |
Python tests | pytest tests/test_agents/ tests/test_api/ … with 97% coverage |
codeql.yml |
Analyze (python) | security-and-quality query pack + .github/codeql/codeql-config.yml |
codeql.yml |
Analyze (javascript-typescript) | Same; scans ui/src/ and extension/ |
Secret scanning and push protection are enabled on the repo. Dependabot alerts + security updates are on.
Python — log injection (py/log-injection)
Every dynamic value in a logger call must use %s placeholders + sanitize_log_value() — not f-strings or % with raw user/request/exception text:
from utils.logging_config import sanitize_log_value, mask_email
# ✅ Correct
logger.warning("Workflow failed for session %s: %s", sanitize_log_value(session_id), sanitize_log_value(err))
logger.info("Login attempt for %s", mask_email(email))
# ❌ Wrong — CodeQL flags f-string interpolation
logger.warning(f"Workflow failed for session {session_id}: {err}")
Numeric format specifiers: never wrap %d, %f, or %.Nf args with sanitize_log_value() — it returns str and breaks formatting at runtime:
logger.info("Parsed resume (%d bytes)", file_size) # ✅
logger.info("Parsed resume (%d bytes)", sanitize_log_value(file_size)) # ❌ TypeError
Emails: always mask_email() (GDPR). Emails are not auto-redacted by the formatter.
Defense in depth: JSONFormatter / DevelopmentFormatter in utils/logging_config.py also strip CRLF/null bytes from log message text.
Python — clear-text logging (py/clear-text-logging-sensitive-data)
Use mask_email() for emails. API keys, tokens, and passwords must never appear in log messages — the formatter redacts keys matching SENSITIVE_PATTERNS, but explicit mask_email() / sanitize_log_value() at call sites is still required.
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 · 120 lines · 1,338 tokens per session scan A 7162276f950c
codeql-security-scanning is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository eliornl/rolemule (38 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 1,338 tokens to every session, about $0.0054 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 2026-08-30.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
forge
ForgeDock pipeline adapter for Cursor Agent mode.
shell-scripting
Apply when writing or reviewing Bash or POSIX shell scripts — automation, CI steps, deploy scripts, or any shell-based tooling.
workflows-files
Cursor rule "workflows-files" from MairwunNx/xi, covering github workflows rules, core principles and naming and structure.
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.