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/Farzannajipour/cursor-react-rulesWrote 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/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/testing/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/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules/testing.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00617 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00247 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
testing 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 — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Standards
Testing Library
- Use React Testing Library
- Use @testing-library/user-event for interactions
- Use Jest as test runner
Testing Principles
Test User Behavior, Not Implementation
// ❌ Bad - testing implementation
expect(component.state.count).toBe(1);
// ✅ Good - testing user-visible behavior
expect(screen.getByText(/count: 1/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
Use Accessible Queries
Priority order:
getByRole- Accessibility-firstgetByLabelText- FormsgetByText- User-visible textgetByTestId- Last resort
Example Test Pattern:
import { render, screen, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react';
import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event';
describe('LoginForm', () => {
it('submits form with valid credentials', async () => {
const user = userEvent.setup();
const mockSubmit = jest.fn();
render(<LoginForm onSubmit={mockSubmit} />);
await user.type(screen.getByLabelText(/email/i), '[email protected]');
await user.type(screen.getByLabelText(/password/i), 'password123');
await user.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /log in/i }));
await waitFor(() => {
expect(mockSubmit).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
email: '[email protected]',
password: 'password123',
});
});
});
});
What to Test
Components:
- Rendering with different props
- User interactions (click, type, etc.)
- Loading and error states
- Accessibility
Hooks:
- Initial state
- All actions/methods
- Edge cases
- Cleanup
Integration:
- Complete user flows
- API interactions (mocked)
- State updates
- Navigation
Mocking
Mock External Dependencies:
jest.mock('next/navigation', () => ({
useRouter: jest.fn(),
}));
jest.mock('@/lib/api', () => ({
fetchUser: jest.fn(),
}));
Mock API Calls:
global.fetch = jest.fn(() =>
Promise.resolve({
ok: true,
json: async () => ({ data: 'test' }),
})
) as jest.Mock;
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 · 116 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A a736d3533370
testing is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Farzannajipour/cursor-react-rules (3 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 617 tokens. 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
upgrade-tests
// ✅ CORRECT: Upgrade package pattern await using ctx = testReactResource(appRouter, { server: { // server configuration }, client(opts) { return { links: [ httpLink({ url: opts.httpUrl, // client configuration }), ], }; }, }).
react-query-tests
// ✅ CORRECT: Legacy React Query pattern const ctx = konn() .beforeEach(() => createAppRouter()) .afterEach((ctx) => ctx?.close?.()) .done().
tanstack-react-query-tests
// ✅ CORRECT: Use await using for automatic cleanup await using ctx = testReactResource(appRouter, { server: { // server configuration }, client(opts) { return { links: [ httpLink({ url: opts.httpUrl, // client configuration }), ], }; }, }).
verify
Review implementation ownership and verify Plate packages, editor states and registry artifacts through their actual proof owners. Use before writing a plan's phase exits or proof gates, before checking, skipping, deferring or moving any plan proof gate to limits, before writing or changing any test, including…
benchmark
Measure and repair Plate/Slate performance, or review a performance design before running its applicable benchmark lanes. Use before writing, reviewing, running, rerunning, checking, skipping or deferring a performance gate, including a plan's scale gate, before writing a benchmark script, before explaining a…
issue-harvester
Maintain exhaustive Slate/Plate issue-closure ledgers from current issue, PR, test and local proof evidence.