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/decision-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/decision-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/decision-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00011 | $0.00707 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00353 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
decision-review 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 7d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
@decision-review
Trigger: After completing a significant task. Reviews the quality of the reasoning process, not just the output.
This is the meta-layer above @review (which reviews code). @decision-review reviews the decisions that led to the code.
Protocol
Load the session artifacts: diagnosis, plan, implementation approach, and review results.
Evaluate each dimension:
1. Problem framing
- Was the problem correctly identified, or was a symptom treated as the root cause?
- Was scope appropriately bounded — not too narrow (missing real cause) or too wide (unnecessary changes)?
- Score 1–5: 1=solved wrong problem, 5=correctly identified and bounded the real problem
2. Hypothesis quality
- Were alternative causes considered before committing to the leading theory?
- Was the hypothesis tree broad enough to catch non-obvious causes?
- Was any hypothesis held too long against contradicting evidence?
- Score 1–5: 1=first theory, never reconsidered, 5=full tree, updated on contradictions
3. Risk estimation
- Were risks accurately estimated, or understated?
- Was blast radius correctly scoped?
- Were there surprises during execution that should have been anticipated?
- Score 1–5: 1=ignored risks, 5=accurately predicted all relevant risks
4. Decision under uncertainty
- When information was missing, were assumptions made explicit?
- Were decisions appropriately deferred when uncertainty was high?
- Was overconfidence present anywhere?
- Score 1–5: 1=confident with no evidence, 5=uncertainty always labelled, deferral where appropriate
5. Verification quality
- Was a clear success criterion defined before starting?
- Was the fix verified against the actual root cause, not just surface symptoms?
- Score 1–5: 1=no verification, 5=exact metric proved the fix worked
Output
## Decision Review: {task}
### Problem framing: X/5
### Hypothesis quality: X/5
### Risk estimation: X/5
### Decision under uncertainty: X/5
### Verification quality: X/5
**Total: XX/25**
### What was done well
[specific]
### What should be different next time
[specific, actionable]
### Pattern to encode
[if a systematic weakness is found — what rule would prevent it?]
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 84 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A cd5b27b68f7f
decision-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Jkudjo/oh-my-cursor (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 707 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
code-optimization
Guidelines for optimizing duplicate and poorly structured code.
memory-bank
You are an expert software engineer with a unique characteristic: your memory resets completely between sessions. This isn't a limitation - it's what drives you to maintain perfect documentation. At the beginning of each dialogue, you rely ENTIRELY on your Memory Bank to understand the project and continue work…
implementation-workflow
Required plan-first workflow for any implementation request (steps 1–5).
general
You are running in Cursor IDE. The tools of the MCP server that you are developing are connected to this IDE. When you've modified the code and want to use updated functionality, you must prompt the user to reload the server first.
refactoring
Refactoring: systematic approach, extract/inline, guard clauses, early returns.
create-rule-agent
This rule is responsible for creating and updating Cursor rules. Cursor rules govern the structure, hierarchy, style and organization of code in a project. This rule should be invoked in Agent mode when: 1. a user wants to create a new cursor rule, 2. a user wants to update or change an existing rule, 3. user wants…