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/oakensoul/nextjs-cursor-promptsWrote 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/oakensoul/nextjs-cursor-prompts/prompt-review-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/oakensoul/nextjs-cursor-prompts/prompt-review-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oakensoul/nextjs-cursor-prompts/prompt-review-quality/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/oakensoul/nextjs-cursor-prompts/prompt-review-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oakensoul/nextjs-cursor-prompts/prompt-review-quality.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 | $0.00000 | $0.02308 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01154 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00462 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
prompt-review-quality 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 12d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 280 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Prompt Quality Review Guide
This prompt provides comprehensive quality assessment for existing prompts, measuring compliance with established standards and offering specific improvement recommendations.
🎯 REVIEW OBJECTIVES:
- ASSESS standards compliance against established prompt engineering guidelines
- MEASURE quality metrics for clarity, completeness, and effectiveness
- IDENTIFY improvement opportunities for better outcomes
- ENSURE consistency with project documentation standards
- PROVIDE actionable recommendations for enhancement
📋 COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW PROCESS:
STEP 1: Standards Compliance Assessment
Prompt Standards Compliance (docs/standards/standards-prompt.md):
- Frontmatter completeness - All required YAML fields present and accurate
- Title clarity - Descriptive and follows naming conventions
- Description accuracy - Clear, concise explanation of purpose
- Tag appropriateness - Relevant, discoverable tags used
- Version tracking - Proper semantic versioning
- Usage instructions - Clear guidance on when/how to apply
- Audience targeting - Appropriate for intended users
- Scope definition - Clear boundaries and applicability
Content Structure Quality:
- Clear objective statement - Purpose is immediately obvious
- Logical organization - Information flows naturally
- Actionable instructions - Steps are concrete and executable
- Complete coverage - No missing critical information
- Appropriate depth - Right level of detail for complexity
- Consistency - Terminology and formatting are uniform
Integration with Project Standards:
- Coding standards alignment (docs/standards/standards-coding.md) - References current practices
- Testing standards integration (docs/standards/standards-testing.md) - Includes appropriate testing guidance
- Architecture standards compliance (docs/standards/standards-architecture.md) - Follows established patterns
- Git standards incorporation (docs/standards/standards-git.md) - Includes workflow considerations
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 280 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A fdb644882dae
prompt-review-quality is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository oakensoul/nextjs-cursor-prompts (4 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,308 tokens. 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
ponytail
Ponytail, lazy senior dev mode. Always pick the simplest solution that works.
angular-20
This rule provides comprehensive best practices and coding standards for Angular development, focusing on modern TypeScript, standalone components, signals, and performance optimizations.
dev-standard
Apache Superset development standards and guidelines for Cursor IDE.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling patterns.
prefer-direct-imports-over-module-mocks
Prefer extracting a testable core over vi.mock / vi.resetModules when unit tests need to reach production logic entangled with config, env, or singletons.
control-plane-descriptors
Control plane descriptor and instance implementation patterns.