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/nphausg/ai-agent-skillsWrote 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/nphausg/ai-agent-skills/general_clean_code_principles)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/nphausg/ai-agent-skills/general_clean_code_principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/nphausg/ai-agent-skills/general_clean_code_principles/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/nphausg/ai-agent-skills/general_clean_code_principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/nphausg/ai-agent-skills/general_clean_code_principles.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 | $0.00006 | $0.00087 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00035 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00017 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00009 |
Grade A, and why
general_clean_code_principles 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
- Keep functions small and focused
- One class per file
- Limit function size to 20 lines if possible
- Avoid long parameter lists (max 3–4 parameters)
- Minimize nested control structures
- Remove commented-out code before committing
- Prefer meaningful names over comments
- DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself): extract duplication
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 · 13 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A e4a10d115a2e
general_clean_code_principles is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository nphausg/ai-agent-skills (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 87 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
knip
Knip dead-code policy: why each override in root knip.jsonc exists, and how the default and production passes feed the PR code-quality report.
quality-report
PR code-quality report: non-blocking Knip and jscpd diff against the merge base, isolated write token, sticky comment, and the .jscpd.json rationale.
code-style
Code style - OXC decides; thin handlers; unknown only at I/O boundaries; oxlint suppression form; strict tsconfig flags.
pr-review
Comprehensive pull request review from multiple perspectives.
code-analysis
Perform advanced code analysis with multiple inspection options.
review
Structured code review with severity ratings — CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW.