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/gaebalai/Cursor-DEF-A-RuleWrote 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/gaebalai/cursor-def-a-rule/team_collaboration_rules)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/gaebalai/cursor-def-a-rule/team_collaboration_rules"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/gaebalai/cursor-def-a-rule/team_collaboration_rules.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 | $0.03278 | $0.03278 |
| Opus 5 | $0.01639 | $0.01639 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00656 | $0.00656 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00328 | $0.00328 |
Grade A, and why
team_collaboration_rules 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 7d 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 — 374 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Copyright (c) 2025 Jaewoo Kim
MIT License - https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
[DEFINE] 팀 협업 통합 전략
팀 개발 특성 분류
team_characteristics:
small_team:
definition: "2~5명의 소규모 팀"
defa_strategy: "유연한 단계 적용・직접적인 커뮤니케이션 중시"
collaboration_focus: "지식 공유・상호 학습"
medium_team:
definition: "6~15명의 중규모 팀"
defa_strategy: "표준화된 프로세스・역할 분담 명확화"
collaboration_focus: "프로세스 최적화・품질 보증"
large_team:
definition: "16명 이상의 대규모 팀"
defa_strategy: "완전 DEF-A 적용・포괄적 품질 관리"
collaboration_focus: "확장성・지속적 개선"
distributed_team:
definition: "지리적으로 분산된 팀"
defa_strategy: "비동기 협업・문서화 중시"
collaboration_focus: "커뮤니케이션 효율・지식 관리"
팀 협업의 DEF-A 단계별 접근
team_defa_flow:
define_stage:
focus: "팀 목표・역할 명확화 및 공유 이해 구축"
activities:
- 프로젝트 목표・요구사항에 대한 공유 이해
- 팀원별 역할・책임 명확화
- 기술 스택・개발 환경 통일
- 커뮤니케이션・협업 규칙 수립
explore_stage:
focus: "다양한 관점에서 문제 분석・해결책 검토"
activities:
- 팀원 전원의 의견・아이디어 수집
- 기술적・업무적 제약 사항 분석
- 복수의 해결 접근법 검토
- 리스크・영향 범위 평가
formulate_stage:
focus: "팀 합의 형성・통합 전략 수립"
activities:
- 최적 해결책에 대한 팀 합의 형성
- 구현 계획・일정 수립
- 품질 기준・평가 지표 통일
- 협업 프로세스 설계
act_stage:
focus: "협력적 구현・병행 작업 효율화"
activities:
- 역할 분담 기반 병행 구현
- 정기적인 진행 상황 공유・조율
- 상호 코드 리뷰・피드백
- 문제 해결・의사결정의 신속화
assess_stage:
focus: "팀 성과 평가・학습 효과 측정"
activities:
- 팀 성과・품질 평가
- 협업 프로세스 효과 측정
- 개인・팀 학습 평가
- 개선 사항 도출 및 다음 단계에 반영
[EXPLORE] 팀 협업의 다양성 활용
인지 스타일별 팀 협업
cognitive_collaboration:
systems_thinking_team:
characteristics:
- 논리적・구조적 사고
- 시스템 전체 최적화 중시
- 효율성・확장성 추구
defa_application:
- Define: 시스템 요구사항・아키텍처 설계
- Explore: 기술적 제약・의존 관계 분석
- Formulate: 통합 시스템 설계・최적화 전략
- Act: 구조화된 구현・자동화 추진
- Assess: 시스템 성능・효율성 측정
empathy_thinking_team:
characteristics:
- 사용자 중심 사고
- 경험・감정에 대한 배려
- 공감・이해 중시
defa_application:
- Define: 사용자 니즈・경험 요구 정의
- Explore: 사용자 행동・감정 분석
- Formulate: 사용자 경험 설계・개선 전략
- Act: 사용성 중심 구현・테스트
- Assess: 사용자 만족도・경험 품질 측정
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 374 lines · 3,278 tokens per session scan A 160739ea6120
team_collaboration_rules is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository gaebalai/Cursor-DEF-A-Rule (12 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It adds 3,278 tokens to every session, about $0.0164 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.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
slice-tasks
PLANNING SPINE STEP 2 of 3 — Slice the work: break a scoped PRD into vertical-slice stories in specs/epics/. Use after scope-work (step 1), before plan-work (step 3). Not a substitute for scope-work or plan-work.
iris
GitHub operations specialist — branches, pull requests, issues, releases, tags. Called by zeus after review. Never pushes or merges without explicit human approval. Integrates with VS Code GitHub Pull Requests extension.
elite-orchestrator
Elite orchestrator for mission-critical, enterprise-scale tasks requiring strategic coordination of 7+ agents across all domains. Makes architectural decisions, manages risk, ensures business continuity, and delivers enterprise-grade outcomes. Use for platform migrations, security incidents, multi-system integrations…
feedback-enhanced
Rules for an interactive feedback system that lets users and an AI agent discuss complex development work in real time. It includes guidance for recording decisions, tracking progress and handling detailed inputs such as code and diagrams.
project-onboarding-rule
Automatically onboards existing projects into the AI-driven development workflow.
linear-in-review
After finishing a Linear issue, set its status to In Review (never Done).