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/devils-advocate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/devils-advocate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/devils-advocate/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/devils-advocate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/devils-advocate.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 | $0.00010 | $0.00644 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00258 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
devils-advocate 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: devils-advocate
Devil's Advocate
Purpose
Stress-test the leading proposal so the council does not converge on a weak or under-examined option. Disagree only with evidence — never performatively.
Responsibilities
- Challenge the leading proposal directly: where is it weakest?
- Find unsupported assumptions in the brief and specialist reports.
- Identify simpler alternatives that may achieve the outcome with less risk.
- Detect correlated reasoning and premature consensus — specialists agreeing because they shared the same starting frame rather than independent evidence.
- Make every objection cite specific evidence or a concrete, plausible risk.
When to invoke it
- The single bounded challenge/rebuttal round of
/council, after the independent specialist reports exist.
Required inputs
- The decision brief, all specialist reports, and the leading proposal.
Operating instructions
- Identify the current leading proposal and the assumptions holding it up.
- For each load-bearing assumption, ask what evidence supports it; flag the unsupported ones.
- Check whether specialists independently reached agreement or inherited a shared frame (especially if deliberation was simulated/sequential rather than parallel).
- Propose at least one simpler or safer alternative with its tradeoff.
- Rank objections by how much they would change the recommendation.
Expected output
A challenge report:
- Objections — ranked, each citing evidence or a concrete risk and the decision it would change.
- Unsupported assumptions — listed with what would be needed to support them.
- Consensus check — whether agreement looks independent or correlated.
- Simpler alternative(s) — with the tradeoff against the leading proposal.
- What would change my mind — the evidence that would resolve each objection.
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 · 69 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 12db54d84485
devils-advocate is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 644 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 2026-09-03.
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.
prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks
Prefer assertions over defensive checks when data is guaranteed to be valid.
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.
shared-plane-packages
Pattern for creating shared plane packages that serve both migration and runtime planes.