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/holtwood/awesome-cursorrules-zhWrote 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/holtwood/awesome-cursorrules-zh/no-unnecessary-confirmations-rule)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/holtwood/awesome-cursorrules-zh/no-unnecessary-confirmations-rule"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/holtwood/awesome-cursorrules-zh/no-unnecessary-confirmations-rule/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/holtwood/awesome-cursorrules-zh/no-unnecessary-confirmations-rule"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/holtwood/awesome-cursorrules-zh/no-unnecessary-confirmations-rule.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00031 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00015 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00006 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00003 |
Grade A, and why
no-unnecessary-confirmations-rule 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-commenting-standards — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed MIT
The repository is licensed MIT, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 6 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 9d05c3f7bb09
no-unnecessary-confirmations-rule is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository holtwood/awesome-cursorrules-zh (233 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 31 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-commenting-standards, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
pr-review-cursorrules-prompt-file
Cursor rules for focused PR reviews with severity ranking, file and line citations, and separate review angles for security, performance, tests, and architecture.
clean-code
Guidelines for writing clean, maintainable, and human-readable code. Apply these rules when writing or reviewing code to ensure consistency and quality.
04-review-and-commit
Review, completion, and commit workflow.
90-project-local
Project-specific engineering conventions.
Code-Quality-Review
Reviews code snippets or files, identifying potential issues related to code quality, style consistency, best practices, readability, maintainability, and potential logic flaws.
analyze-pr-changes
Comprehensive analysis of Pull Request changes.