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/Jkudjo/oh-my-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/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/analyze)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/analyze/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/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/analyze.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00461 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00184 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
analyze 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
@analyze
Trigger: Before a large refactor, investigating performance, finding tech debt, or understanding a complex area.
Protocol
-
Read only — no code changes.
-
Identify the scope from the argument. For brownfield: scan the relevant files first.
-
Analyze each dimension:
Complexity hotspots
- Functions > 40 lines
- Nesting depth > 4
- Files > 300 lines
- Long parameter lists (> 4 args)
Coupling
- What imports what — who depends on this module?
- Blast radius: if this file changes, what breaks?
- Circular dependencies
Dead code
- Unused exports
- Unreachable branches (
if (false), code after return) - TODO/FIXME/HACK comments — count and locate
Test gaps
- Which functions/branches have no test coverage?
- Which error paths are untested?
Dependencies
- Outdated packages (compare versions)
- Packages imported but barely used
-
Report:
## Analysis: {scope} ### Overview [2-3 sentences] ### Hotspots (top 5 by severity) 1. `file:line` — issue, why it matters, recommended action ### Dependency map [key relationships and blast radius] ### Tech debt inventory TODOs: N | Complexity flags: N | Dead code: N ### Recommended actions Priority 1 (do now): ... Priority 2 (do soon): ... Priority 3 (backlog): ... -
Call
save_artifacttype=specs, slug=analyze-{scope-slug}. -
Call
set_memorykey=analyze-{scope}, value=the report.
Rules
- Read-only. No code changes.
- Rank findings by impact, not volume.
- "Recommended actions" must be concrete and actionable, not vague ("consider refactoring").
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 · 71 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A c1d440ea299d
analyze is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Jkudjo/oh-my-cursor (1 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 461 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
refactoring
Refactoring: systematic approach, extract/inline, guard clauses, early returns.
clean-code
Clean code: naming, functions, simplicity.
code-review
Code review: reviewing approach, authoring PRs, feedback conventions.
git-workflow
Git workflow: commits, branches, PRs, history management.
performance
Performance: profiling-first optimization, caching, bottleneck patterns.
error-handling
Error handling: typed errors, boundaries, user messages.