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/jterratsdev/ableton-live-mcp/code-review-engineeringgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jterratsdev/ableton-live-mcpWhat 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 | $0.00437 | $0.00437 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00218 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00087 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00044 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-engineering 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 yesterday.
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 — 37 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Engineering
Code review protects behavior, users, operations, and maintainability. Review risk before style.
Review Order
- Review behavior, data safety, security, reliability, and user impact before naming or formatting.
- Check whether the change matches the agreed solution, acceptance criteria, and Definition of Done.
- Verify tests cover meaningful behavior, failure paths, and regression risk.
- Confirm evidence: commands run, screenshots, logs, traces, benchmarks, or QA results when relevant.
Required Checks
- Module boundaries: file size, responsibility, layer placement, command/controller thinness, and god-file risk.
- API changes: contract, compatibility, auth, validation, rate limits, and error shape.
- Data changes: migrations, indexes, constraints, backfills, rollback, and sensitive data handling.
- UI changes: responsive layout, accessibility, copy, states, and screenshots.
- Async changes: idempotency, retries, timeout, DLQ, and observability.
- Infra changes: plan output, least privilege, cost, scalability, rollback, and drift risk.
- Static analysis: pre-commit hook, lint, typecheck, secret scan, dependency scan, and SAST status.
Review Findings
- Findings must include severity, file or artifact, risk, expected behavior, and concrete recommendation.
- Do not approve unresolved blockers, failing CI, missing tests, or undocumented risk acceptance.
- Nitpicks must not block unless they hide real maintainability, readability, or consistency risk.
- If the change is too large to review reliably, request split PRs or staged rollout.
Self-Review
- Authors must review their own diff before requesting review.
- Authors must confirm large-file additions, command-module logic, and repeated hardcoded collections were either avoided, extracted, or recorded as explicit debt.
- Remove debug code, dead code, unrelated formatting, and accidental files.
- Summarize architectural decisions, trade-offs, test evidence, and known gaps in the PR.
- Confirm static analysis and required hooks passed before requesting review.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 37 lines · 437 tokens per session scan A 791a7adb85cc
code-review-engineering is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository jterratsdev/ableton-live-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 437 tokens to every session, about $0.0022 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
angular-20
This rule provides comprehensive best practices and coding standards for Angular development, focusing on modern TypeScript, standalone components, signals, and performance optimizations.
dev-standard
Apache Superset development standards and guidelines for Cursor IDE.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling patterns.
prefer-direct-imports-over-module-mocks
Prefer extracting a testable core over vi.mock / vi.resetModules when unit tests need to reach production logic entangled with config, env, or singletons.
control-plane-descriptors
Control plane descriptor and instance implementation patterns.
family-instance-domain-actions
Family instance domain action implementation patterns.