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.
npx agentmods add rules/nedcodes-ok/cursor-doctor/code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nedcodes-ok/cursor-doctorWhat 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 | $0.00821 | $0.00821 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00411 | $0.00411 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00164 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00082 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 2d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 38 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Rules
As a Reviewer
- Review in this priority order: correctness → security → readability → performance → style. Don't block a PR on naming preferences when there's an unchecked SQL injection
- Point to the specific line. Suggest the specific fix. "This could be better" is not actionable. "This query is vulnerable to SQL injection — use parameterized queries:
db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [id])" is - Ask questions for things you don't understand: "Why does this retry 5 times instead of 3?" — often the author knows something you don't, or they'll realize it's wrong
- Approve when it's correct and maintainable, even if you'd write it differently. Your style preference is not a bug. Blocking for style teaches the team to stop requesting your review
- Review the test changes as carefully as the implementation — tests with wrong assertions pass and give false confidence
What to Look For
- Does the code actually do what the PR title/description claims? Read the diff, don't trust the summary
- Error paths: what happens when the API call fails, the file doesn't exist, the user input is garbage? Missing error handling passes code review because reviewers follow the happy path
- N+1 queries: a loop that makes a database call per iteration. This passes every review because it works perfectly with 3 test records and melts the database with 10,000
- Auth/authz: is the new endpoint protected? Does it check object ownership or just authentication? New endpoints without permission checks are the most common security review miss
- Breaking changes: does this change affect other consumers? API contract changes, database migrations, config format changes, event schema changes — anything downstream consumers depend on
As a PR Author
- Self-review the diff before requesting review — you'll catch formatting, debug logs, TODO comments, and accidental file inclusions. If you didn't review your own diff, you're wasting the reviewer's time on typos
- PR description: what changed, why, how to test, and any risks. "Fixed the bug" is useless. "Users were seeing stale data because the cache TTL was 24h. Changed to 5min. Risk: higher DB load, monitoring dashboard link: X"
- Keep PRs under 400 lines of meaningful changes. Larger PRs get rubber-stamped because reviewers lose focus after 20 minutes. Split large changes into a stack: refactor → add interface → implement feature
- Respond to every comment: resolve, explain, or acknowledge. Silent resolution leaves the reviewer wondering if you agreed or disagree
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 38 lines · 821 tokens per session scan A 499b004aaf8d
code-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository nedcodes-ok/cursor-doctor (9 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 821 tokens to every session, about $0.0041 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
angular
Angular: signals, standalone components, RxJS patterns.
django
Django: models, views, ORM best practices.
java
Modern Java: records, sealed classes, streams, virtual threads.
javascript
Modern JavaScript: ES2023+, async patterns, common traps.
rust
Rust patterns: ownership, Result types, iterators.
accessibility
Accessibility: semantic HTML, ARIA, keyboard navigation, testing.