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/lucasviola/specwikiWrote 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/lucasviola/specwiki/specwiki-checkpoint)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/lucasviola/specwiki/specwiki-checkpoint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/lucasviola/specwiki/specwiki-checkpoint/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/lucasviola/specwiki/specwiki-checkpoint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/lucasviola/specwiki/specwiki-checkpoint.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 | $0.00549 | $0.00549 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00220 | $0.00220 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00110 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00055 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
specwiki-checkpoint 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 2mo 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 — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
specwiki — Story completion checkpoint (HARNESS §0.3)
When finishing a code-changing story or task, or when the owner explicitly requests a quality-gate run, end the user-facing message with the full HARNESS §0.3 checkpoint — not a shortened summary.
Do not run the quality gate, automated code review, QA analysis, or return a §0.3 checkpoint for non-code prompts or non-executable metadata changes. This includes questions, discovery, and updates such as Markdown documentation or sprint-status YAML. Respond with a concise result instead.
Required sections (in order)
- What was built — 2–4 bullets
- Tests written — list new/changed test cases
- Logging (§0.8) — checklist with
[x]or[ ] - Security (§0.9) — checklist with
[x]or[ ] - Quality gate — all six commands with pass/fail and counts
- Automated code review (§0.2.5) — reviewer model + findings table (or "skipped" with reason)
- QA analysis (§0.2.6) — AC coverage, regression risks, gaps
- Manual validation steps — MANDATORY; never omit
- IMPLEMENTATION.md updated — yes/no
- Implement review patches? — ask owner before commit
Manual validation steps — non-negotiable
After the quality gate section, always include a ### Manual validation steps block with numbered, copy-pasteable commands and expected outcomes.
Sources (use in order):
- Story file
## QA Manual Validationsection (if present) - Story
**Demo path:**in Dev Notes - Generate steps from HARNESS §0.2.6 template tailored to the task
Each step must be: N. \command` — expected outcome`
Do not bury manual steps only in the story file. The owner must see them in the chat response.
Common specwiki commands
npm test
npm test -- tests/output/wiki.test.ts -t "pattern"
npm run dev generate -- --project tests/fixtures/sample-project --output /tmp/specwiki-qa
npm run dev generate -- --project tests/fixtures/sample-project --verbose 2>&1 | head
npm run dev open -- --project tests/fixtures/sample-project --output /tmp/specwiki-qa
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 47 lines · 549 tokens per session scan A de77fe0d8da0
specwiki-checkpoint is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository lucasviola/specwiki (12 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 549 tokens to every session, about $0.0022 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 2026-08-30.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
fuzzing
Fuzzing setup and guidelines for skia-rs.
testing-and-quality
The testcomprehensive.py provides systematic testing of all 31 MCP tools.
smoke-monkey-tester
Smoke tests for core functionality and monkey/chaos tests aiming to break the system with randomized inputs. / TR: Sistemin temel fonksiyonlarını kontrol eden smoke testler ve rastgele girdilerle sistemi çökertmeyi hedefleyen monkey/chaos testleri.
testing
Testing conventions for Ion Design System using Jest and Angular Testing Library.
STAGE_S5_TEST_POINTS
A staged workflow for turning approved requirements into a complete list of test points. It checks required earlier documents and records any requirement that has no matching test point.
pre-flight-check
Mandatory fail-fast quality gate — run Typecheck, Lint, Test, and Security Audit sequentially before declaring any task done or committing code.