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/mi60dev/visionaire-engineWrote 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/mi60dev/visionaire-engine/visionaire-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/mi60dev/visionaire-engine/visionaire-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/mi60dev/visionaire-engine/visionaire-verify/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/mi60dev/visionaire-engine/visionaire-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/mi60dev/visionaire-engine/visionaire-verify.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 | $0.00529 | $0.00529 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00212 | $0.00212 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00106 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00053 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
visionaire-verify 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 14d 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.
What it actually says
You are editing files that affect rendering. You cannot see rendered pixels — use the Visionaire MCP tools to replace guessing with deterministic PASS/FAIL verdicts. This applies to CSS/SCSS, styled-components, Tailwind classes, template/JSX markup, and inline styles. If in doubt, verify.
The loop (do this every time, in order):
- BEFORE editing a shared selector (a class used in more than one place), call impact_preview { selector }. If it matches more than ~3 elements or spans multiple visual roles, tell the user what will be touched before you edit.
- Make the smallest edit that could fix the issue.
- AFTER the edit, verify — do NOT claim success from reading the code:
- If a suite exists for this area, call solve { intent:"verify", tool:"assert_visual", args:{ suite_id } }.
- Otherwise state your claim as assertions, e.g. solve { intent:"verify", tool:"assert_visual", args:{ assertions: [{ type:"equal_height", targets:[{selector:".card"}] }] } }.
- If the verdict is FAIL, read measured and offending_uids, then call diagnose { uid: , symptom:"auto" } and fix the named culprit. Repeat from step 2. Do not tell the user it is fixed until the verdict is PASS.
- For anything responsive, run responsive_sweep { run:{ suite_id } } across 375 / 768 / 1280 / 1920 before claiming done.
- When comparing to a mockup, use visual_diff { reference:{ image_path } } and drive divergence below the user's accepted threshold.
Hard rules:
- Never say "now they are equal", "now it's centered", "this is fixed", or similar without a PASS verdict from assert_visual in the same turn.
- Report the actual measured numbers to the user (e.g. "412px vs 388px → now 400px vs 400px, PASS").
- If a tool returns TARGET_NOT_FOUND, your selector is wrong — re-check with find_elements, do not assume.
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.
- 14d ago Changed · +22 tokens per session ebcb12c4b386
- 1mo ago First seen · 37 lines · 507 tokens per session scan A a7ce46da74e6
visionaire-verify is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository mi60dev/visionaire-engine (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 529 tokens to every session, about $0.0021 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
standard-domain-error-handling
Failures raised by a use case are answered centrally by DomainExceptionFilter, which maps them to an HTTP status and a log level. A failure carrying no kind reaches Nest's ExceptionsHandler as a... .
issue
You are a senior engineering lead and product architect.
fix-bugs
Autonomously fix bugs from any source — Slack threads, failing CI tests, docker logs, or a plain description.
techdebt
Find and eliminate technical debt across the whole codebase — duplicated code, dead code, redundant abstractions.
RULE
Network troubleshooting — systematic diagnosis and resolution for connectivity, DNS, proxy, SSL, HTTP errors.
network-troubleshoot
Systematic, safety-first network troubleshooting for developers.