prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks

prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks is a cursor rule for Codex, Cursor from prisma/orm. It costs 0 tokens per session (1,215 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A testing rule for using assertions when earlier validation guarantees that data exists or is valid. An assertion records that assumption directly in the code.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when validated data is accessed later in TypeScript code or tests. It helps replace unnecessary optional checks with explicit assumptions.
Why use it?
It removes defensive branches for situations the program cannot reach through normal use. This avoids tests for impossible states and reduces maintenance work.

Cursor rule for CodexCursor ✓ vendor

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

Good fit Use it when validated data is accessed later in TypeScript code or tests. It helps replace unnecessary optional checks with explicit assumptions.

Compare 6 cursor rules from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add rules/prisma/orm/prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks
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 · 47,697 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: Codex, 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 prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks

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

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/prisma/orm/prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/prisma/orm/prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 0 Nothing until a file matches its globs; then the whole rule loads.
When invoked 1,215 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
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 $0.00000 $0.01215
Opus 5.5 $0.00000 $0.00486
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00000 $0.00243
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00121

Measured 4d ago against content hash 034e405d9b4e, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks 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 4d 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/prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks.mdc · 126 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Prefer Assertions Over Defensive Checks

CRITICAL: When data has already been validated, use assertions instead of defensive checks. This eliminates unrealistic test scenarios and makes invalid states unrepresentable.

The Problem

Defensive checks with optional chaining create code paths that are impossible in practice — and force tests that bypass TypeScript to exercise impossible states (coverage padding), break when types are tightened, and add maintenance burden.

// ❌ WRONG: Defensive check after validation
if (!contractTable.columns[columnName]) {
  errorUnknownColumn(columnName, tableName);
}
const columnMeta = contractTable.columns[columnName];
const codecId = columnMeta?.codecId; // Optional chaining unnecessary
if (codecId && paramName) paramCodecs[paramName] = codecId;
paramDescriptors.push({
  ...(codecId ? { type: codecId } : {}),
  ...(columnMeta?.nullable !== undefined ? { nullable: columnMeta.nullable } : {}),
});
// ✅ CORRECT: Use assertions after validation
if (!contractTable.columns[columnName]) {
  errorUnknownColumn(columnName, tableName);
}
const columnMeta = contractTable.columns[columnName]!; // assert existence
const codecId = columnMeta.codecId;                    // required property, no optional chaining
if (paramName) paramCodecs[paramName] = codecId;
paramDescriptors.push({ type: codecId, nullable: columnMeta.nullable }); // required, no optional check

When to use assertions

  • Data has been validated: you've already checked it exists/is valid (e.g. after if (!contractTable.columns[columnName]) use columnMeta!; after if (!model) use model!).
  • Type system guarantees it: TypeScript types require the property.
  • Contract validation ensures it: runtime validation (e.g. validateContract) guarantees the structure, so access required properties directly.

When NOT to use assertions

  • Data is truly optional: the property might legitimately be missing.
  • External input: data from user input, APIs, or files that hasn't been validated.
  • Unvalidated contracts: contract data that hasn't been validated yet.

Read the full file on GitHub · 126 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. 4d ago Changed 034e405d9b4e
  2. 13d ago Changed c013b8edb1e5
  3. 1mo ago First seen · 126 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 720402292917

Subscribe to this mod's changes

prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository prisma/orm (47,697 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,215 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 2026-08-30.