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/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-templateWrote 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/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/quality-report)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/quality-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/quality-report/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/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/quality-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/quality-report.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 | $0.00858 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00343 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
quality-report 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 13d 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 — 27 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Report
quality.yml posts one sticky PR comment listing the unused code (Knip) and duplication (jscpd) a PR adds or resolves; pre-existing findings stay out. Workflow-wide rules (pins, permissions, install, cache key): ci.mdc.
Invariants
- Never blocking: not in the
mainruleset, never aci.ymlstep. Findings keepAnalyzegreen; only a tool that could not run turns it red (build-report.mjsexits 1 after writing the comment), so a crash never reads as clean. Every tool step iscontinue-on-error: trueand reports throughsteps.<id>.outcome, so one crash never hides the other tool. - Diff against the merge base: the checkout is the PR merge commit at
fetch-depth: 2, soHEAD^1is the exact base the merge lands on, with no full history. Knip runs both passes on both sides - the base in agit worktreewith its own install,knip.jsonc, and scripts - keyed by type, file, and symbol, never by line. Knip gates nothing, so the base carries findings of its own: only the base run keeps them out of the report and yields the resolved ones. - jscpd diffs in both directions with its own fingerprints: the PR scanned with
--baseline-from-ref "$BASE_SHA"marks new clones; the base worktree scanned with--baseline-from-ref "$GITHUB_SHA"marks the clones the PR removed. Both runs use the PR's binary and.jscpd.json(--config), so a config change never shows as a diff. - Write token isolated:
analyze(contents: read) restoresci.yml's pnpm store withactions/cache/restoreand never saves it;comment(pull-requests: write) runs no PR code, onlychangesets/action/pr-commentwithupdate-id: code-quality, fed through job outputs. Fork PRs skipcommentand keep the job summary. pr-commentsearches only the first 30 comments, so a PR that already had 30 when its first report posted gets a new comment per run; the report posts onopened, before that happens.- Concurrency is keyed by PR number with
cancel-in-progress: one run per PR, and a cancelled run never reachescomment, so the comment only moves forward. Its footer names the analyzed commits.
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.
- 13d ago Changed ad96570583be
- 15d ago First seen · 27 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f3db9ca768cc
quality-report is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template (19 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 858 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 2026-10-01.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
pr-review
Comprehensive pull request review from multiple perspectives.
code-analysis
Perform advanced code analysis with multiple inspection options.
general_clean_code_principles
Clean code principles for better readability.
review
Structured code review with severity ratings — CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW.
analyze
Codebase analysis — complexity, coupling, dead code, tech debt hotspots.
optimize-dry-solid-principles-cursorrules-prompt-f
Cursor rules for optimization development with DRY and SOLID principles integration.