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/markmhendrickson/foundationWrote 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/markmhendrickson/foundation/risk_management)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/markmhendrickson/foundation/risk_management"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/markmhendrickson/foundation/risk_management/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/markmhendrickson/foundation/risk_management"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/markmhendrickson/foundation/risk_management.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 | $0.00030 | $0.01046 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00418 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
risk_management 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 — 168 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Risk Management and Hold Points Rule
Reference: foundation/conventions/documentation_standards.md - Documentation standards
Purpose
Ensures agents stop and request human approval for high-risk changes that could impact system stability, security, or architectural integrity.
Scope
This document defines:
- When agents MUST stop and request approval
- Risk levels (Low/Medium/High)
- Hold point triggers
- Approval workflow
This document does NOT cover:
- Specific constraints agents must enforce (see
agent_constraints.md) - Security audit requirements (see
security.md) - Repository-specific risk classification (configured in
foundation-config.yaml)
Configuration
Configure risk classification in foundation-config.yaml:
risk_management:
enabled: true
risk_classification_path: "docs/private/governance/risk_classification.md" # Optional
foundation_docs_path: "docs/foundation/" # Path to foundation documents
high_risk_paths: [] # Repository-specific high-risk paths
# Example:
# - "docs/foundation/"
# - "src/auth/"
When Agents MUST Stop
AI assistants MUST stop and request human approval for:
- Schema changes (table structure, breaking data model changes)
- High-risk changes (see configured risk classification path if exists)
- Foundation document changes (files in configured foundation docs path)
- Security changes (auth, access control, encryption)
- Violating documented constraints (even if user requests)
Risk Levels
Low Risk
- Documentation updates
- UI text changes
- Unit test additions
- Non-breaking API additions
- Feature additions within existing scope
Action: Proceed with standard validation checklist
Medium Risk
- New features within scope
- API endpoint additions
- Logic changes in non-critical paths
- Subsystem modifications
- Configuration changes
Action: Proceed with enhanced validation, notify user of scope
High Risk
- Schema migrations
- Auth changes
- Breaking API changes
- Foundation document modifications (files in configured foundation docs path)
- Security changes
- Architectural changes
- Changes that violate documented constraints
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 · 168 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 5b9da427646d
risk_management is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository markmhendrickson/foundation (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,046 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
ponytail
Ponytail, lazy senior dev mode. Always pick the simplest solution that works.
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.
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.
config-validation-and-normalization
Config validation and normalization responsibilities (defineConfig normalizes, the orm section schema validates and resolves paths, the loader reports per-section diagnostics).
control-plane-descriptors
Control plane descriptor and instance implementation patterns.