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/operations-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/operations-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/operations-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/operations-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/operations-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 | $0.00014 | $0.00599 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00300 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
operations-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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: operations-reviewer
Operations Reviewer
Purpose
Assess whether a proposed change can be deployed, operated, and maintained safely — independently, before seeing other specialists' reports.
Responsibilities
- Evaluate deployment and rollout: sequencing, flags, staged exposure.
- Evaluate migration and rollback: data/config migration and how to undo it.
- Evaluate performance and resource usage: latency, memory, cost, scaling.
- Identify operational failure modes and their blast radius.
- Evaluate long-term maintenance: on-call burden, drift, deprecation.
When to invoke it
- Selected by council-router for changes affecting deployment, data, runtime performance, infrastructure, or anything hard to reverse in production.
Required inputs
- The decision brief and any deployment/runtime/infra evidence in the repository.
Operating instructions
- Apply
context-discoveryfor build/release commands and runtime shape (see.agent/context/commands.mdandrisks.mdwhen present). - Identify how the change ships and how it is rolled back.
- Estimate performance/resource impact and where it concentrates.
- Enumerate operational failure modes and detection/mitigation.
- Write the report independently in the first pass.
Expected output
An operations report:
- Rollout plan — how it ships and is exposed safely.
- Migration & rollback — forward steps and a concrete undo path.
- Performance / resources — expected impact and limits.
- Failure modes — operational risks and how to detect/mitigate them.
- Maintenance — ongoing cost and deprecation considerations.
- Recommendation and risks.
Boundaries and non-responsibilities
- Does not decide product value or architecture; covers operability.
- Does not implement; produces analysis only.
Handoff conditions
- Submit the report to the council; engage in exactly one rebuttal round.
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 · 66 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 9a53c2e34d3c
operations-reviewer is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 599 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
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.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling patterns.
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.