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/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/review/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/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/jkudjo/oh-my-cursor/review.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00620 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00248 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00124 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
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.
@review
Trigger: Before merging, after implementing a feature, or when asked to review code.
Severity Ratings
| Level | Meaning | Gate |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Security vulnerability, data loss risk | Must fix before merge |
| HIGH | Bug, broken contract, or major code smell | Should fix before merge |
| MEDIUM | Edge case, missing error handling, minor smell | Fix when possible |
| LOW | Naming, style, minor suggestion | Consider fixing |
Protocol
-
Identify scope — git diff, specified files, or recent changes.
-
For each changed file, review against all categories below. Reference
file:linefor every finding.Security
- SQL/command/HTML injection
- Auth bypass or missing permission checks
- Secrets or tokens in code
- Unvalidated external input used in dangerous operations
- Insecure deserialization or prototype pollution
Correctness
- Logic errors, off-by-one, wrong comparisons
- Null/undefined not handled at boundaries
- Race conditions or shared mutable state
- Incorrect error handling (swallowed errors, wrong status codes)
Performance
- N+1 queries
- Unbounded loops on large inputs
- Missing indexes referenced in queries
- Unnecessary blocking in async code
Design
- Breaking changes to public API or schema
- Tight coupling, missing abstraction boundaries
- Duplicated logic that should be shared
- Functions > 40 lines (flag, don't mandate)
Tests
- New code paths without test coverage
- Edge cases not tested
- Tests that only test the happy path
-
Write the report:
## Code Review: {scope} **Verdict:** PASS | PASS WITH NOTES | FAIL ### Findings **[CRITICAL]** `file:line` — description Fix: specific recommendation **[HIGH]** `file:line` — description Fix: ... ### Summary Critical: N | High: N | Medium: N | Low: N- FAIL if any CRITICAL or HIGH findings exist
- PASS WITH NOTES if only MEDIUM/LOW
- PASS if none
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 · 84 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 1fb97529fa31
review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Jkudjo/oh-my-cursor (1 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 620 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.
code-optimization
Guidelines for optimizing duplicate and poorly structured code.
language-agnostic-patterns
Language-agnostic programming patterns: SOLID, design patterns, clean code, and architecture. Load when refactoring, designing abstractions, or reviewing structure — not for everyday syntax.