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/jaycewalzer1/SilverKey-Inc.Wrote 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/jaycewalzer1/silverkey-inc./linting)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/jaycewalzer1/silverkey-inc./linting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/jaycewalzer1/silverkey-inc./linting/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/jaycewalzer1/silverkey-inc./linting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/jaycewalzer1/silverkey-inc./linting.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 | $0.00238 | $0.00238 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00095 | $0.00095 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00048 | $0.00048 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00024 |
Grade A, and why
linting 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
Linting and Type-Check Rules
- Linter errors are blocking for the code you touch. Do not introduce new lint/type failures.
- Fix newly introduced errors before continuing; do not expand scope into unrelated pre-existing issues unless asked.
- Respect ESLint/Prettier/TS configs under
Client/config/and root TS/Vite configs. - Use existing scripts when validating locally (full gate list:
ci-gates.mdc):- From
Client/:pnpm lint,pnpm format,pnpm typecheckas needed (seeClient/package.json). - Repo-wide:
./scripts/ci/run-all-linters.sh [client|server|all].
- From
- Do not disable rules without justification; prefer code changes over suppression.
- UI Component Standardization: Ensure all buttons and text use standardized components from
Client/packages/ui/. Seeui-components.mdcfor detailed rules.
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 · 16 lines · 238 tokens per session scan A a775f2efad73
linting is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository jaycewalzer1/SilverKey-Inc. (2 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 238 tokens to every session, about $0.0010 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 2026-09-08.
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.