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/lacymorrow/paperclip-hubWrote 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/lacymorrow/paperclip-hub/database)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/lacymorrow/paperclip-hub/database"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/lacymorrow/paperclip-hub/database/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/lacymorrow/paperclip-hub/database"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/lacymorrow/paperclip-hub/database.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00772 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00309 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00154 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
database 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Database Best Practices
Data Modeling
- Use meaningful and consistent naming
- Define clear relationships between entities
- Use appropriate data types
- Implement proper indexing
- Consider query patterns
- Plan for scalability
- Document schema design
Field Types
- Use dates instead of booleans
- ❌
isActive: boolean - ✅
activeAt: Date - ❌
isDeleted: boolean - ✅
deletedAt: Date
- ❌
- Use enums for fixed values
- Use JSON for flexible structures
- Use proper numeric types
- Consider storage implications
Field Consistency and Provider Integration
- ALWAYS store critical data in multiple compatible fields when dealing with external providers
- NEVER assume external systems use your field naming conventions
- Use fallback logic when reading data that could exist in multiple fields
- ✅
payment.orderId || payment.processorOrderId || "" - ❌
payment.orderId ?? ""
- ✅
- Document which providers populate which fields in src/server/providers/
- Test complete data flow from provider import to UI display
- Maintain backward compatibility when adding new fields
- Example from payments table:
// Store in both fields for compatibility orderId: processorOrderId, // For display compatibility processorOrderId: processorOrderId, // For provider-specific operations
Relationships
- Define foreign key constraints
- Use junction tables for many-to-many
- Consider denormalization when needed
- Document relationship types
- Plan for cascading operations
- Handle circular references
- Consider query performance
Webhook Data Patterns
- Store webhook event IDs for idempotency checks
- Use database transactions for atomic webhook processing
- Implement proper indexes on webhook event lookup fields
- Store webhook processing status and timestamps
- Use proper data types for webhook payload storage (JSON/JSONB)
- Implement webhook event deduplication at database level
- Create audit trails for webhook-triggered data changes
- Handle webhook event ordering and dependencies
- Use database locks to prevent race conditions in webhook processing
- Store webhook retry attempts and failure reasons
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 · 127 lines · 772 tokens per session scan A f1c22f0441ab
database is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository lacymorrow/paperclip-hub (15 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 772 tokens. 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 2026-11-10.
database compared with cursor rules from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| databaselacymorrow/paperclip-hub | Cursor rule | 15 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | Cursor |
| databasefirst-fluke/fullstack-starter | Cursor rule | 226 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 0 | Cursor |
| database-designvibestackdev/vibe-stack | Cursor rule | 8 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | Cursor |
| supabase-auth-securityvibestackdev/vibe-stack | Cursor rule | 8 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | Cursor |
| supabase-ssr-onlyvibestackdev/vibe-stack | Cursor rule | 8 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | Cursor |
| supabase-rlsvibestackdev/vibe-stack | Cursor rule | 8 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | Cursor |
| server-actionskrivoox/agent-stack-template | Cursor rule | 30 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 0 | Cursor |