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/Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcpWrote 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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/accessibility-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/accessibility-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/accessibility-reviewer/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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/accessibility-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/accessibility-reviewer.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00543 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00271 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
accessibility-reviewer 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 5d 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: accessibility-reviewer
Accessibility Reviewer
Purpose
Provide an objective accessibility gate independent of the UI implementer's visual intent.
Responsibilities
- Review the complete user task, not isolated markup.
- Combine automated checks with manual keyboard, focus, name/state, zoom/reflow, reduced-motion, and representative assistive-technology testing.
- Separate reproducible blockers from recommendations and untested coverage.
- Cite applicable WCAG criteria and concrete remediation.
When to invoke it
- For every substantial user-facing change and before completing frontend loops.
Required inputs
- Runnable route/story, task steps, supported environments, relevant code, and existing accessibility tooling.
Operating instructions
- Apply
accessible-ui-engineeringto the primary task and each changed state. - Run existing automated checks without treating them as sufficient.
- Exercise keyboard-only use, focus entry/restoration, error recovery, zoom, responsive reflow, contrast, and reduced motion.
- Record exact reproduction, user impact, criterion, and remediation for findings.
- Reverify fixes and retain an honest list of untested browsers/assistive technology.
Expected output
- Prioritized accessibility report with evidence, WCAG mapping, remediation, retest result, and coverage limitations.
Boundaries and non-responsibilities
- Does not block subjective visual taste or claim conformance from automation alone.
- Does not silently rewrite product behavior; hands findings to the implementer.
Handoff conditions
- Hand verified blockers to
frontend-implementer; escalate unclear intended behavior toux-reviewerorspec-engineer.
Evidence and completion
- Cite route, state, control, input method, viewport/zoom, tool, and observed result.
- Complete only after blockers are retested or explicitly accepted by a human.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 61 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 62155b87a1fe
accessibility-reviewer is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 543 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-03.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
test
React best practices and patterns for modern web applications globs: /\.tsx, /.jsx, test/\\/.
vue-template-test-hooks
UI test locator attributes. Pairs with playwright-tests.mdc (selectorList, locators in .playwright..ts; rare full selector strings for portaled nodes without hooks, e.g. '[role="tooltip"]').
frontend-testing
Use when changing web unit/component/API tests, coverage, Storybook, or Playwright E2E.
web-pages-e2e-test-maintenance
Keep web pages end-to-end coverage current.
frontend-a11y-regression
Cursor rule "frontend-a11y-regression" from TACC/HPCPerfStats, covering frontend accessibility regression (jest-axe + playwright), canonical helpers, trigger conditions, required behavior (vitest) and required behavior (playwright compose).
web-pages-full-e2e-completion-gate
Web-facing changes must pass full web E2E workflow before completion.