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.
npx agentmods add rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/resumegit 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/resume)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/resume"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/resume.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00540 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00270 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
resume 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 4d 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
@resume
Trigger: At the start of a session when continuing previous work.
Protocol
Phase 1 — Load checkpoint
- Call
get_session_context— load active modes, plans, memories, last checkpoint. - Call
load_checkpoint(no ID) — load the latest checkpoint. - Present resume summary:
## Resuming session Last checkpoint: {created_at} Summary: {what was done} Next steps: {what to do now} Blockers: {any blockers} Active modes: {list} Approved plan: {plan title or "none"}
Phase 2 — State drift detection (critical)
Before executing anything, validate persisted assumptions against current reality.
Check each of the following and flag any that have drifted:
Codebase drift
- Do the files referenced in the plan still exist at the same paths?
- Have the functions/classes the plan depends on been renamed or removed?
- Are there new commits since the checkpoint that change the affected area?
Environment drift
- Are the environment variables the plan assumes still set?
- Has the DB schema changed since the plan was created?
- Are the services the plan depends on still running?
Plan validity
- Is the approved plan still the right approach given current state?
- Have any of the plan's assumptions been invalidated?
For each drift found, report:
⚠️ DRIFT DETECTED: {what changed}
Was: {what was assumed}
Now: {what is actually true}
Impact: {how this affects the plan}
Action: [update plan | re-interview | proceed with caveat]
If significant drift is found: recommend @deep-interview to re-scope before proceeding.
If minor drift: note it and continue with caveats.
If no drift: confirm "State validated — no drift detected."
Phase 3 — Continue
After drift check:
- If plan is still valid: execute next steps from checkpoint
- If plan needs update: call
save_planwith updated content before proceeding - Restore active mode with
update_mode_stateif a mode was active
Rules
- Never skip the drift check when resuming — a confidently outdated plan is worse than starting fresh.
- Drift check must use live code/config, not memory — read the actual files.
- If drift is detected but ignored, explicitly note the risk in the session log.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 74 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 5fa005bcd470
resume is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Jkudjo/oh-my-cursor (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 540 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
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…
100-memory-system
Comprehensive Memory System architecture for autonomous Cursor operation.
code-optimization
Guidelines for optimizing duplicate and poorly structured code.
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.
memory-protocol
记忆系统 — 召回、写入、维护、防丢失的完整协议.