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/openshift/hypershiftWrote 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/openshift/hypershift/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/openshift/hypershift/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/openshift/hypershift/code-review/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/openshift/hypershift/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/openshift/hypershift/code-review.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 | $0.00003 | $0.00226 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00090 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00023 |
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 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
Prior to submitting or pushing code to Github, these steps should be reviewed
Reviewing the introduced changes
- Use the rules described at https://hypershift.pages.dev/contribute/#prior-to-submitting-a-pull-request to analyze the code changes.
Generate a mermaid diagram with the introduced code
- if you add enumerations, remove the . and change them to -
- Always in english
- Avoid using {} or () in the names
Generate a commit message according the code changed in the PR:
- All commit messages should follow the format outlined in the @git-commit-format.mdc rule.
Basic Rules
- If a code change does not make any sense, please call that out
- Don't provide reasoning without supporting evidence
100-go-mistakes rules taken from https://100go.co/
- Follow the @100-go-mistakes.mdc rules
How code should be scoped
- Follow the documentation at https://hypershift.pages.dev/contribute/.
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 · 27 lines · 3 tokens per session scan A a3f06a80c1ea
code-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository openshift/hypershift (547 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 3 tokens to every session and 226 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 2026-08-30.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
contributing
Cursor rule "contributing" from groupultra/telegram-search, covering contribution & refactor guidelines, 1. before large changes (refactors, new infra, new domains), 2. backend mindset, 3. typescript style and 4. pr hygiene.
workflow
Git branching strategy, commit conventions, and pull request workflow.
safeword-pr-readiness
Prepare a pull request for human review and decide whether it may leave Draft. Use when creating or rewriting a PR description, marking a PR ready, responding to review, or checking mergeability.
pr-standards
Git Commit & PR Standards for AI-Assisted Development.
review-workflow
Review, security, and commit workflow.
check
Analyze staged git changes with archguardian before committing.