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/feral-file/ff-cliWrote 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/feral-file/ff-cli/review-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/feral-file/ff-cli/review-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/feral-file/ff-cli/review-workflow/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/feral-file/ff-cli/review-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/feral-file/ff-cli/review-workflow.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 | $0.00146 | $0.00146 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00058 | $0.00058 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00029 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00015 |
Grade A, and why
review-workflow 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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
Review Workflow Rule
When implementation is complete, run a review loop before commit, push, or PR.
- Produce a compact handoff: goal, scope, files changed, key decisions, checks run, known limitations.
- Invoke the reviewer sub-agent with fresh context and the shared review contract in
prompts/code-review.md. - Provide the reviewer the handoff,
git diff --stat,git diff, and any relevant lint/test/build output. - If the reviewer returns
Verdict: revise, address the findings, re-run verification, update the handoff, and review again. - Only proceed once the reviewer returns
Verdict: accept.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 14 lines · 146 tokens per session scan A 68f6f5d19897
review-workflow is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository feral-file/ff-cli (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 146 tokens to every session, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
gitlab-mr-review
Review GitLab merge requests via glab when user says "mr this" or "pr this".
check
Analyze staged git changes with archguardian before committing.
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.
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.