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/girijashankarj/cursor-handbookWrote 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/girijashankarj/cursor-handbook/integration-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/girijashankarj/cursor-handbook/integration-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/girijashankarj/cursor-handbook/integration-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/girijashankarj/cursor-handbook/integration-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/girijashankarj/cursor-handbook/integration-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 | $0.00446 | $0.00446 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00178 | $0.00178 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00089 | $0.00089 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00045 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
integration-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.
What it actually says
Integration Testing Rules
Setup
- Use a dedicated test database (never production or development)
- Reset database state before each test suite
- Use transactions for test isolation when possible
- Seed minimal data required for each test
API Integration Tests
describe('POST /api/v1/orders', () => {
it('should create an order and return 201', async () => {
const payload = {
customerId: testCustomer.id,
items: [{ productId: testProduct.id, quantity: 2 }],
};
const response = await request(app)
.post('/api/v1/orders')
.set('Authorization', `Bearer ${testToken}`)
.set('X-Correlation-Id', 'test-123')
.send(payload)
.expect(201);
expect(response.body.data).toMatchObject({
customerId: testCustomer.id,
status: 'PENDING',
});
expect(response.body.meta.correlationId).toBe('test-123');
});
it('should return 400 for invalid payload', async () => {
const response = await request(app)
.post('/api/v1/orders')
.set('Authorization', `Bearer ${testToken}`)
.send({})
.expect(400);
expect(response.body.error.code).toBe('VALIDATION_ERROR');
});
it('should return 401 without auth token', async () => {
await request(app)
.post('/api/v1/orders')
.send({ customerId: 'test' })
.expect(401);
});
});
Rules
- Test the full request/response cycle — no mocking the HTTP layer
- Test all status codes: success, validation error, auth error, not found
- Test request validation (missing fields, wrong types, boundary values)
- Test pagination, sorting, and filtering
- Verify response envelope format matches API contract
- Clean up test data — don't leave artifacts
- Use a separate port for test server to avoid conflicts
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 · 64 lines · 446 tokens per session scan A 0b9250a9a29b
integration-testing is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository girijashankarj/cursor-handbook (33 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 446 tokens to every session, about $0.0018 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 2026-09-03.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
playwright
Playwright: e2e testing, page objects, fixtures, assertions.
cypress
Cypress: cy commands, selectors, fixtures, intercepts.
11-testing
Unit, integration, and E2E testing conventions.
playwright
Playwright: e2e testing, page objects, fixtures, assertions.
cypress
Cypress: cy commands, selectors, fixtures, intercepts.
playwright-integration-testing-cursorrules-prompt-file
Cursor rules for Playwright development with integration testing.