Paperclip is a Node.js server and React application for coordinating AI agents as a business team, with goals, organizational roles, budgets, governance, and work tracking in one interface. It is used by people managing multiple agents or autonomous agent organizations across tools such as OpenClaw, Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor. The catalogue includes skills, agents, an MCP add-on, and an instruction for working with Paperclip.
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/paperclipai/paperclipWrote 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/paperclipai/paperclip/pull-request-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/paperclipai/paperclip/pull-request-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/paperclipai/paperclip/pull-request-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/paperclipai/paperclip/pull-request-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/paperclipai/paperclip/pull-request-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 | $0.00274 | $0.00274 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00110 | $0.00110 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00055 | $0.00055 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00027 |
Grade A, and why
pull-request-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 today.
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.
What it actually says
Pull request review
This rule applies when reviewing pull requests throughout this repository.
- Follow the PR description guide in
CONTRIBUTING.mdand the sections in.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md. Request missing thinking paths and missing explanations of what changed, why it matters, the benefits, verification, or risks. - For verification claims, read and apply Preserve failures through acceptance. Check that material failures remain accounted for after a successful retry.
- Do not request UI screenshots in PR reviews for this repository. Visual state verification is described through component tests, enumeration of states in the PR description, and use of existing design tokens. This repository rule takes precedence over the older organization instruction to request screenshots for visual changes.
- When a PR grows a source file from fewer than 1,000 lines to more than 1,000 lines, require a concrete reason for keeping the implementation together. Flag an unexplained crossing and suggest a cohesive extraction. This check does not require unrelated cleanup of every existing large file.
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.
- today Changed · +3 lines · +54 tokens per session 07aa890b4c07
- 2d ago First seen · 23 lines · 220 tokens per session scan A 9e8d3d5b65e6
pull-request-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository paperclipai/paperclip (102,719 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 274 tokens to every session, about $0.0011 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 2026-10-14.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
kandev-harness
Kandev harness routing for skills, the single-session model workflow, and spec-driven work.
kandev-pr-fixup
Kandev PR fixup workflow prompt for Cursor agents.
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.