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/pallerana/agentic-loop-engineering-kitWrote 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/pallerana/agentic-loop-engineering-kit/pr-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/pallerana/agentic-loop-engineering-kit/pr-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/pallerana/agentic-loop-engineering-kit/pr-code-review/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/pallerana/agentic-loop-engineering-kit/pr-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/pallerana/agentic-loop-engineering-kit/pr-code-review.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 | $0.00000 | $0.06028 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.02411 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00603 |
Grade A, and why
pr-code-review 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 — 426 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agentic Loop PR Code Review (your-service-*)
On-demand workflow for reviewing pull requests. Complements service-quality-drill.mdc (build/JaCoCo/CI/fix) — this rule owns context → review → humanized comment tables.
Also apply java-springboot-standards.mdc for all Java/Spring Boot patterns.
Invoke: @pr-code-review + PR URL/number, or "review this PR using our code review rule".
Default mode: report-only — do not auto-apply fixes or commit unless the user explicitly asks.
Workflow overview
Phase 0 (PR + Jira + type + feedback registry) → Pass 1 → Pass 2 → Pass 3 (routed by pr_type) → synthesize → net-new table
Phase 0 — Functional context (mandatory first)
Do not start ce-code-review or Bugbot until Phase 0 is complete.
0a. PR metadata and discussion
gh pr view <n-or-url> --json title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,url,comments,reviews
gh pr view <n-or-url> --comments # when thread detail is needed
Write a Functional Context block (3–8 bullets):
- Intent — what the PR claims to deliver.
- Acceptance signals — must/should language, checklists in description.
- Review thread themes — unresolved or recently resolved comments defining expected behavior.
- Out of scope — explicit deferrals.
If no PR exists, use commit messages + linked docs; note context_source: branch-only.
0b. Jira ticket discovery and fetch
Scan PR title, body, commits, and review comments for keys: [A-Z][A-Z0-9]+-\d+ (e.g. PROJ-123).
For each unique key:
- Fetch via Atlassian MCP
getJiraIssue(preferred). - Fallback: Glean search or compiled jira-backlog.md if MCP unavailable — note
jira_context: partial|unavailablein header.
Capture: summary, status, type, description/AC, parent epic, edge cases/NFRs.
Append Jira scope (key → requirement) and requirements trace (files/methods → AC). If fetch fails, add P2 row for missing context and continue.
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 · 426 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 318f98054b11
pr-code-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository pallerana/agentic-loop-engineering-kit (4 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 6,028 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
clean-code-reviewer
Eliminates technical debt using SOLID, DRY, YAGNI, and Addy Osmani production-grade engineering principles. / TR: SOLID, DRY, YAGNI ve Addy Osmani üretim seviyesi mühendislik ilkeleri ile kod kalitesini denetleyen yetenek.
sweep-benchmarks
Audit xrspatial modules for asv benchmark coverage gaps: missing benchmarks, backend parameterization gaps, unrepresentative inputs, broken or silently-skipped benchmarks.
code-review
BMAD BMM Agent: code-review.
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.