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.
npx agentmods add rules/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/satisfactory-criteriagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflowsWrote 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/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/satisfactory-criteria)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/satisfactory-criteria"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows/satisfactory-criteria.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.01841 | $0.01841 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00920 | $0.00920 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00368 | $0.00368 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00184 | $0.00184 |
Grade A, and why
SATISFACTORY-CRITERIA 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 277 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Satisfactory Criteria
When to apply: Before marking any task as complete or presenting final deliverables.
Core Principle
Work is satisfactory when it meets all quality criteria, not just when the task is done.
Completion ≠ Satisfaction. Satisfactory means:
- Specific and actionable
- Evidence-based
- Sufficiently deep
- Complete or gaps documented
Reference: See COMMON-PATTERNS.md for evidence requirements, confidence levels, and checklist usage.
Universal Satisfactory Criteria
ALL work must meet these five criteria:
1. Specificity
Work is specific when:
- No vague statements ("may need", "possibly", "approximately")
- Quantities are exact ("29 plugins" not "around 20-30")
- Items individually identified, not grouped
- Concrete examples with file:line references
- Recommendations actionable, not theoretical
Check:
- No hedging language without explanation
- All quantities are exact counts
- All items enumerated or documented why not
- Examples are concrete with file:line refs
Example: ❌ "Several plugins may need attention. Approximately 20-30 items." ✅ "29 plugins installed (package.json:65-107). 2 critical risk: cordova-universal-links, safariviewcontroller."
2. Evidence-Based Claims
All claims must have:
- Source (file:line, URL, command output)
- Evidence (code quote, documentation quote, test result)
- Verification method (how checked)
- Version/date context when relevant
Check:
- Every factual claim has a source
- File references include line numbers
- URLs complete and accessible
- Verification method documented
- No assumptions as facts
Reference: See COMMON-PATTERNS.md § Evidence Requirements for detailed standards and FACT-VERIFICATION.md for verification methods.
3. Actionability
Work is actionable when:
- Clear next steps based on actual findings
- Recommendations concrete (not "investigate more")
- Decisions can be made from information
- No placeholder recommendations
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 277 lines · 1,841 tokens per session scan A 8463ba26f52a
SATISFACTORY-CRITERIA is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository qwickapps/ai-sdlc-workflows (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 1,841 tokens to every session, about $0.0092 per session on Opus 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
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.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling patterns.
family-instance-domain-actions
Family instance domain action implementation patterns.
prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks
Prefer assertions over defensive checks when data is guaranteed to be valid.
prefer-direct-imports-over-module-mocks
Prefer extracting a testable core over vi.mock / vi.resetModules when unit tests need to reach production logic entangled with config, env, or singletons.