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 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00217 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
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.
- 1mo 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 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 543 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
puppeteer
This guide provides opinionated, actionable best practices for writing robust, performant, and maintainable Puppeteer scripts for web scraping, automation, and testing. It emphasizes modern patterns like page.locator() and efficient resource management.
web-pages-e2e-test-maintenance
Keep web pages end-to-end coverage current.
local-compose-db-lifecycle-for-web-tests
Keep local compose DB lifecycle ready for web tests.
cypress-e2e-testing-cursorrules-prompt-file
Cursor rule "cypress-e2e-testing-cursorrules-prompt-file" from XD3an/awesome-ai-coding-all-in-one, covering persona, auto-detect typescript usage, end-to-end ui testing focus, best practices and input/output expectations.
vasu-playwright-utils
../../templates/cursor-rules/vasu-playwright-utils.mdc.
playwright
A set of guidelines for Playwright, a tool that controls a web browser to test websites and web applications.