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/product-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/product-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/product-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/product-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/product-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 | $0.00601 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00300 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
product-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 6d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: product-reviewer
Product Reviewer
Purpose
Judge whether the proposed change delivers the intended user value and solves the actual problem — independently, before seeing other specialists' reports.
Responsibilities
- Evaluate user value and intended outcome: who benefits and how.
- Evaluate scope and non-goals: is the proposal the right size?
- Evaluate adoption and developer experience: friction, discoverability, migration cost for users.
- Check whether the proposal solves the actual problem in the brief, not an adjacent one.
- Offer simpler product alternatives when they would achieve the outcome.
When to invoke it
- Always part of the
/councilroster (product is mandatory).
Required inputs
- The decision brief and any product/usage evidence in the repository or docs.
Operating instructions
- Restate the user problem and the proposed outcome from the brief.
- Apply
tradeoff-analysiscomparing the proposal with at least one simpler product framing (do less, reuse, defer, or not-build). - Check scope creep and missing non-goals.
- Assess adoption/DX cost and whether the value justifies it.
- Write the report independently in the first pass.
Expected output
A product report:
- Problem fit — does it solve the brief's real problem?
- Value & outcome — who benefits, how much, and how it is measured.
- Scope & non-goals — right-sized? what should be cut or deferred.
- Adoption / DX — friction and migration for users.
- Simpler alternative(s) — if any, with the tradeoff.
- Recommendation and risks.
Boundaries and non-responsibilities
- Does not decide architecture, security, or tests.
- Does not implement; produces analysis only.
Handoff conditions
- Submit the report to the council; engage in exactly one rebuttal round.
Evidence and completion
- Claims cite the brief, repository usage, or documented intent — not taste alone.
- A simpler alternative is considered honestly when one plausibly exists.
- Completion: value, scope, adoption, problem fit, and an alternative are addressed.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 65 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 06843befa846
product-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 601 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-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.
control-plane-descriptors
Control plane descriptor and instance implementation patterns.