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/modiqo/cliareWrote 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/modiqo/cliare/cliare-artifact-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/modiqo/cliare/cliare-artifact-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/modiqo/cliare/cliare-artifact-review/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/modiqo/cliare/cliare-artifact-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/modiqo/cliare/cliare-artifact-review.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00634 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00254 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
cliare-artifact-review 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.
What it actually says
CLIARE Artifact Review
Use this rule when reviewing a CLIARE artifact directory containing scorecard.json, issues.json, shape.json, and evidence.jsonl. If artifact-map.json is present, read it first. If it is missing and CLIARE is available, generate it with cliare describe <artifact-dir> --write.
Start with persona tables, not raw JSON dumps. For persona-level review, read persona-<persona>.md first, then use persona-<persona>.json and issues.json only for drill-down.
Prefer jq with explicit file paths. Do not use Python, cd, shell redirection, heredocs, or compound shell commands for routine artifact inspection.
Use this order:
- Read
artifact-map.jsonfor folder kind, health, missing required artifacts, and navigation order. - Read posture from
scorecard.json. - Generate missing persona artifacts with
cliare report <persona> --out <artifact-dir> --write. - Show a concise table of priority issues: priority, severity, category, confidence, affected count, issue id/title, and persona action.
- Ask which row to drill into unless the user already named an issue.
- For drill-down, show what the issue means, where it appears, evidence ids, how to address it, and how to verify the fix.
Large issue lists:
- Count affected commands by runtime state first.
- If the user asks for all commands, list compactly from
issues.json. - Do not infer false positives, root causes, or design intent from command names.
- Use artifact states only:
runtime_confirmed,precondition_blocked,unconfirmed, andnot_in_shape_catalog.
Useful queries:
jq '{kind:.artifact_kind,health:.health,navigation:.navigation,missing_required:.missing_required,summaries:.summaries}' <artifact-dir>/artifact-map.json
jq '{score:.score.total,status:.score.status,coverage:{commands_discovered:.coverage.commands_discovered,commands_runtime_confirmed:.coverage.commands_runtime_confirmed,traversal_complete:.coverage.traversal_complete,budget_exhausted:.coverage.budget_exhausted,observed_max_depth:.coverage.observed_max_depth,max_depth:.coverage.max_depth,probes_completed:.coverage.probes_completed,max_probes:.coverage.max_probes}}' <artifact-dir>/scorecard.json
jq '.summary, [.issues[] | {id,severity,category,confidence,title,affected:(.affected_commands|length)}]' <artifact-dir>/issues.json
jq --arg id "issue.help_unavailable" '[.issues[] | select(.id==$id) | .affected_commands[]] | group_by(.state) | map({state:.[0].state,count:length})' <artifact-dir>/issues.json
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 · 47 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A e36d23ed5a95
cliare-artifact-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository modiqo/cliare (469 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 634 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 2026-08-30.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
cursor
You are working on the checkout service. Preserve transaction integrity and auditability.
modus-angular-button-group-usage-short
Critical patterns for ModusButton usage inside ModusButtonGroup in Angular.
release-checklist
What to update with each code change or version release.
modus-checkbox-value-inversion-react-short
Critical bug fix for ModusWcCheckbox value property inversion.
pre-flight-check
Mandatory fail-fast quality gate — run Typecheck, Lint, Test, and Security Audit sequentially before declaring any task done or committing code.
05-daemons-ipc
Use this rule to understand the roles of the HAPPE/IDA/mcp-hostd daemons, how HAPPE and IDA communicate via IPC, find the IPC message structure definitions, trace the memory retrieval flow, and identify daemon responsibilities.