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/GoranErhartic/cursor-development-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/goranerhartic/cursor-development-rules/testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/goranerhartic/cursor-development-rules/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/goranerhartic/cursor-development-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/goranerhartic/cursor-development-rules/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/goranerhartic/cursor-development-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 | $0.00040 | $0.00460 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00184 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00046 |
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.
What it actually says
Lambda Testing Patterns
Unit Tests (Vitest 4)
- Handler: Invoke handler with mock event (APIGatewayProxyEventV2, SQSEvent, etc.); assert return shape and status/body or batchItemFailures
- Event factories: Build minimal valid events (e.g.
Recordswith body, messageId); reuse in tests - AWS SDK mocking: Use
aws-sdk-client-mock(or equivalent) to mock DynamoDB, SNS, SQS, etc.; set up in test or setupFiles; reset in afterEach - Env: Set
process.envin setup (table names, region, LOG_LEVEL); no real AWS calls
Config
- Vitest:
environment: "node";setupFilesfor env and global mocks; path alias@to src; exclude cdk from unit test glob - TDD: Red/Green/Refactor; test behavior and contracts, not implementation
Integration (LocalStack)
- Use Testcontainers with LocalStack 3.x (or similar) for integration tests; create resources (SQS, DynamoDB, SNS) in test; invoke handler or call clients against LocalStack
- Optional: Full deploy with CDK and run against deployed stack (e2e)
CDK Tests
- Use
aws-cdk-lib/assertions;Template.fromStack(stack);template.resourceCountIs,template.hasResourcePropertiesfor Lambda, queues, etc. - Snapshot tests for template if desired; update snapshots deliberately
Conventions
- Unit test handlers with mocked AWS; use factories for events; integration tests with LocalStack or real resources in test account; CDK tests for infrastructure
Anti-Patterns
- Real AWS calls in unit tests; no cleanup of mocks; testing implementation details; flaky integration tests
See also: lambda-handlers.mdc, sqs-processing.mdc, cdk-testing.mdc, ../../patterns/testing.mdc
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 · 38 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A ad85661d4f3a
testing is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository GoranErhartic/cursor-development-rules (19 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 460 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
use-contract-ir-factories
Use factory functions for creating ContractIR objects instead of manual object creation.
gonavi-go
A Go coding rule set for the GoNavi repository, based on common Go style guides and the project's own conventions. It covers file structure, errors, context, concurrency, logging, and tests.
workflow-level3
Defines the standard workflow for Level 3 (Intermediate Feature) tasks, guiding through comprehensive planning, targeted creative design, structured implementation, detailed reflection, and feature-specific archiving.
reflection-basic
Basic reflection format for Level 2 Simple Enhancement tasks.
rule-calling-guide
Comprehensive guide for calling VAN QA rules.
common-fixes
Utility for VAN QA common validation fixes.