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/gokulkrishh/.cursorWrote 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/gokulkrishh/.cursor/review-diff)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/gokulkrishh/.cursor/review-diff"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/gokulkrishh/.cursor/review-diff/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/gokulkrishh/.cursor/review-diff"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/gokulkrishh/.cursor/review-diff.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 | $0.00600 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00240 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
review-diff 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Prompt for Cursor
You are an expert code reviewer. Please conduct a thorough review of this branch/diff focusing on the following areas:
Performance Analysis
- Identify potential performance bottlenecks or inefficiencies
- Look for unnecessary loops, redundant operations, or expensive function calls
- Check for proper use of data structures and algorithms
- Analyze memory usage patterns and potential leaks
- Review database queries for optimization opportunities
Design Patterns & Architecture
- Check for proper separation of concerns and modularity
- Review naming conventions and code readability
- Identify opportunities for refactoring or pattern improvements
Error Handling & Edge Cases
- Verify comprehensive error handling and graceful failure modes
- Check for proper input validation and sanitization
- Look for unhandled exceptions or error conditions
- Assess logging and debugging capabilities
- Review boundary conditions and edge case handling
Bug Detection
- Identify potential runtime errors, null pointer exceptions, or type mismatches
- Look for race conditions, deadlocks, or concurrency issues
- Check for off-by-one errors, infinite loops, or logic flaws
- Verify proper resource management (file handles, connections, etc.)
- Review state management and data consistency
UI/UX & Accessibility (if applicable)
- Verify semantic HTML structure and proper use of ARIA attributes
- Ensure keyboard navigation works properly (tab order, focus indicators)
- Validate screen reader compatibility and alt text for images
- Review responsive design and mobile accessibility
- Check for proper form labels and error messaging
- Assess loading states, animations, and motion sensitivity considerations
- Verify text scaling works up to 200% without loss of functionality
- Review heading hierarchy and document structure
Security & Best Practices
- Check for security vulnerabilities (injection attacks, XSS, etc.)
- Verify proper authentication and authorization
- Review sensitive data handling and encryption
- Assess compliance with coding standards and best practices
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 · 83 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0e726b811b68
review-diff is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository gokulkrishh/.cursor (3 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 600 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
clean-code-reviewer
Eliminates technical debt using SOLID, DRY, YAGNI, and Addy Osmani production-grade engineering principles. / TR: SOLID, DRY, YAGNI ve Addy Osmani üretim seviyesi mühendislik ilkeleri ile kod kalitesini denetleyen yetenek.
sweep-benchmarks
Audit xrspatial modules for asv benchmark coverage gaps: missing benchmarks, backend parameterization gaps, unrepresentative inputs, broken or silently-skipped benchmarks.
code-review
BMAD BMM Agent: code-review.
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.