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/quinnjr/fruityloops-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/quinnjr/fruityloops-mcp/git-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/quinnjr/fruityloops-mcp/git-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/quinnjr/fruityloops-mcp/git-workflow/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/quinnjr/fruityloops-mcp/git-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/quinnjr/fruityloops-mcp/git-workflow.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 | $0.00794 | $0.00794 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00318 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00159 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00079 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
git-workflow 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 — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Git Workflow Rules
Critical: Never Bypass Git Hooks
NEVER use --no-verify flag in any git commands.
Git hooks are in place to ensure code quality and workflow compliance. Bypassing them defeats their purpose and can lead to:
- Broken builds on CI/CD
- Code quality issues
- Non-compliant commit messages
- Protected branch violations
❌ FORBIDDEN Commands
# NEVER DO THIS:
git commit --no-verify
git push --no-verify
git commit -n
git push -n
✅ Correct Approach
If a git hook fails:
- Read the error message - it tells you what's wrong
- Fix the issue - address the linting, formatting, or validation error
- Commit normally - let the hooks validate your changes
# If pre-commit fails:
uv run ruff check --fix .
uv run ruff format .
git add .
git commit -m "fix: your message"
# If tests fail:
uv run pytest
# Fix failing tests, then commit
# If commit message format is wrong:
# Use conventional commits format
git commit -m "feat: add new feature"
Git-Flow Branching
Branch Types
main- Production code (protected)develop- Development integration (protected)feature/*- New featuresbugfix/*- Bug fixeshotfix/*- Production fixesrelease/*- Release preparationgh-pages- Documentation (auto-managed)
Branch Creation
# Feature
git checkout develop
git checkout -b feature/descriptive-name
# Bugfix
git checkout develop
git checkout -b bugfix/issue-description
# Hotfix
git checkout main
git checkout -b hotfix/critical-fix
# Release
git checkout develop
git checkout -b release/v1.1.0
Protected Branches
Never push directly to:
maindevelop
Always use Pull Requests for these branches.
Commit Message Format
Follow Conventional Commits specification:
type(scope): description
[optional body]
[optional footer]
Valid Types
feat: New featurefix: Bug fixdocs: Documentationstyle: Formatting (no code change)refactor: Code restructuringtest: Adding/updating testschore: Maintenance tasksperf: Performance improvementci: CI/CD changesbuild: Build system 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 144 lines · 794 tokens per session scan A 38ad15df6da4
git-workflow is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository quinnjr/fruityloops-mcp (6 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 794 tokens to every session, about $0.0032 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
rebase-only-merged-agents
When rebasing after a merge, only rebase the agents whose branches you just merged. Do not rebase agents that are still running.
iris
GitHub operations specialist — branches, pull requests, issues, releases, tags. Called by zeus after review. Never pushes or merges without explicit human approval. Integrates with VS Code GitHub Pull Requests extension.
git-workflow
Rules for git operations, commit strategy, and GitHub CLI usage.
release-checklist
What to update with each code change or version release.
git-workflow
Git commit format and PR process - conventional commits.
branching-merging-strategy
This is a set of instructions to the AI Assistant for branching and merging strategy.