coding-standards

A set of project rules for writing code comments, documentation, CSS comments, boolean names, and Storybook titles. It points to the project's source document and comment-checking command.

In plain words
What is it for?
Writing short reason-focused comments, putting explanations in the right documentation location, and checking comment rules with the project's lint command.
Why use it?
It gives contributors one consistent standard and helps catch comments that explain code poorly or repeat what the code already shows.

Cursor rule for Cursor

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add rules/ocean-industries-concept-lab/openbridge-webcomponents/coding-standards
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ocean-Industries-Concept-Lab/openbridge-webcomponents

Made for: Cursor.

Per session 0 Nothing until a file matches its globs; then the whole rule loads.
When invoked 1,577 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.01577
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00788
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00315
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00158

Measured 2d ago against content hash 1c16fe9a8fd4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

coding-standards 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.

.cursor/rules/coding-standards.mdc · 118 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Coding Standards

AGENTS.md § 2 carries the summary; docs/agents/coding-standards.md is the source of truth for comments, CSS comments, writing style, boolean naming and Storybook titles. npm run lint:comments reports what breaks the comment rules.

Comments

Write for a developer reading this file in a month, not for the reviewer of this PR. If they would get it from the code, don't write it.

  • WHY, never WHAT. A comment that restates the code is deleted.
  • Explanation belongs on the declaration. Document a class, property or method in its JSDoc. A comment inside a method body is allowed only for a why that has no declaration to live on (a guard that looks removable, a coupling to another file) — three lines at most.
  • Three lines, at most. Longer explanations are not comments:
    • behaviour → a .spec.ts test that pins it
    • CSS / layout / visual behaviour → a Storybook story; the snapshot is the doc
    • still needs prose → the story's parameters.docs.description.story
  • A title line, then a short paragraph — in JSDoc, docs and CSS blocks. Two words of heading usually replace four lines of prose.
  • No history, no dates, no change narration — no "previously did X", "since #994", "confirmed 2026-08-17", "added to fix Y". The why of a change goes in the commit message and the PR body; git log and git blame are first-class sources — use them before writing a comment.
  • State, then cite. If a reference is used, the sentence stands alone and (#1234) is a trailing pointer, never the explanation. One per comment.
  • TODO(designer): … marks an open design question. Any other TODO carries an issue: TODO(#1234): ….
  • Keep existing comments when refactoring unless the change makes them obsolete.
  • Comment pass before done: re-read the comments in your diff against these rules; delete what does not earn its lines. npm run lint:comments reports the rest.

Read the full file on GitHub · 118 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 118 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 1c16fe9a8fd4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

coding-standards is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Ocean-Industries-Concept-Lab/openbridge-webcomponents (91 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,577 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 2026-08-30.