explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics

explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics is a cursor rule for Cursor from prisma/orm. It costs 730 tokens per session, scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A design rule that makes users explicitly request risky or surprising behaviour instead of allowing it by default and warning them every time.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it for options that may cause performance problems, lifecycle leaks, or a wider-than-usual effect, such as a flag, method, or configuration setting.
Why use it?
It keeps diagnostics focused on real problems and makes deliberate choices visible in the code for future readers.

Cursor rule for Cursor ✓ vendor

Written for Cursor: a Cursor rule (.mdc). Also seen: installed under .agents/ (shared by several agents).

Good fit Use it for options that may cause performance problems, lifecycle leaks, or a wider-than-usual effect, such as a flag, method, or configuration setting.

Compare 6 cursor rules from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add rules/prisma/orm/explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics
About the project

Prisma ORM is a Node.js and TypeScript database toolkit that lets applications work with databases through a programming interface instead of writing every query directly in SQL. Developers use it with databases including PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, SQL Server, SQLite, MongoDB, and CockroachDB. The catalogue add-ons provide agent rules, skills, hooks, agents, and other workflows for using Prisma.

prisma/orm · 47,694 stars · on GitHub · prisma.io

Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/prisma/orm

Made for: Cursor.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/prisma/orm/explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/rules/prisma/orm/explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/prisma/orm/explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/prisma/orm/explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/prisma/orm/explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/prisma/orm/explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 730 This file is loaded in full into every session.
When invoked 730 The same file — it is already loaded in full.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00730 $0.00730
Opus 5.5 $0.00292 $0.00292
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00146 $0.00146
Haiku 4.5 $0.00073 $0.00073

Measured 1mo ago against content hash d1ddbe0e3453, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics 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.

Origin

Copies of this mod

1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:

.agents/rules/explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics.mdc · 47 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Explicit opt-in over noisy diagnostics

When designing a feature where a user choice has a non-obvious consequence (footgun, lifecycle leak, performance cliff, surprising blast radius), prefer requiring the user to explicitly opt in to the risky behaviour over permitting it by default and emitting a diagnostic on every use.

The principle:

  • A diagnostic on an intentional user path is noise. The user already declared intent by writing the code; warning them every build adds friction without adding signal.
  • An explicit opt-in (a flag, a method name, a config key) encodes the intent at the call site, where future readers can see it. The audit trail is the code itself; no diagnostic is needed because the choice is documented in place.
  • This trades a one-time authoring cost (the user has to type the opt-in) for ongoing review clarity (every reader sees the deliberate choice).

When to use which

Explicit opt-in, no diagnostic — the right answer when:

  • The behaviour is valid for some users (i.e., not a bug we want to discourage universally).
  • The user can reasonably be expected to know what they're doing if they opt in.
  • The opt-in is itself self-documenting (e.g., onDelete: 'cascade', allowCrossSchemaCascade: true, dangerouslyAllowX).
  • The diagnostic would fire on every build for a path the user already chose intentionally.

Diagnostic, no opt-in — the right answer when:

  • The behaviour is almost certainly a bug (e.g., shadowed variable, dead code).
  • The user has no realistic path to "yes, I meant that" — the diagnostic is the only signalling mechanism.
  • The cost of a false positive is low (one-time fix or suppression).

Both opt-in and diagnostic — rare, and usually wrong:

  • Only justified when the opt-in itself can be expressed correctly in many places but only intended in some (and even then, prefer narrowing the opt-in's scope so it can't be over-applied).
  • Default to dropping one of the two. If the user has to opt in, the opt-in is the audit trail; a diagnostic on top is double-charging the user for the same decision.

Read the full file on GitHub · 47 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 47 lines · 730 tokens per session scan A d1ddbe0e3453

Subscribe to this mod's changes

explicit-opt-in-over-diagnostics is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository prisma/orm (47,694 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 730 tokens to every session, about $0.0029 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 2026-08-30.