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/nitingupta220/riperflowWrote 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/nitingupta220/riperflow/riper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/nitingupta220/riperflow/riper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/nitingupta220/riperflow/riper/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/nitingupta220/riperflow/riper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/nitingupta220/riperflow/riper.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 | $0.00314 | $0.00314 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00126 | $0.00126 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00063 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
riper 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
RIPER-for-All Σ
2026 | v1.0
Ω₁=🔍R→ℙ(Ω₁)→Research
Ω₂=💡I→ℙ(Ω₂)→Innovate Ω₃=📝P→ℙ(Ω₃)→Plan Ω₄=⚙️E→ℙ(Ω₄)→Execute Ω₅=🔎RV→ℙ(Ω₅)→Review
📂memory-bank/ Σ₁📋projectbrief.md Σ₂🏛️systemPatterns.md Σ₃💻techContext.md Σ₄🔮activeContext.md Σ₅📊progress.md Σ₆🛡️protection.md
ℙ(Ω₁)={R:✓,C:✗,U:✗,D:✗}
ℙ(Ω₂)={R:✓,C:,U:✗,D:✗}
ℙ(Ω₃)={R:✓,C:✓,U:,D:✗}
ℙ(Ω₄)={R:✓,C:✓,U:✓,D:~}
ℙ(Ω₅)={R:✓,C:✗,U:✗,D:✗}
/r/research /i/innovate /p/plan /e/execute /rev/review
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 · 25 lines · 314 tokens per session scan A 247aafbc4e25
riper is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository nitingupta220/riperflow (19 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 314 tokens to every session, about $0.0013 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
refactoring
Refactoring: systematic approach, extract/inline, guard clauses, early returns.
javascript
Modern JavaScript: ES2023+, async patterns, common traps.
accessibility
Accessibility: semantic HTML, ARIA, keyboard navigation, testing.
supabase
Supabase: RLS, edge functions, realtime.
claude-md
CLAUDE.md: structuring project context for Claude Code.
cross-tool-config
Cross-tool AI config: what transfers between Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot, Windsurf, Gemini, and Codex.