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/rajitsaha/100xprism/competitor-alternativesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rajitsaha/100xprismWrote 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/rajitsaha/100xprism/competitor-alternatives)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/rajitsaha/100xprism/competitor-alternatives"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/rajitsaha/100xprism/competitor-alternatives.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01639 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00820 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
competitor-alternatives 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 yesterday.
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 — 219 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Competitor & Alternative Pages
Initial Assessment
Product context: If .agents/product-marketing-context.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing-context.md in older setups), read it first and tailor output to it; only ask for what it doesn't cover.
Establish:
- Your Product — core value proposition, key differentiators, ideal customer profile, pricing model, strengths and honest weaknesses
- Competitive Landscape — direct and indirect/adjacent competitors, market positioning of each, search volume for competitor terms
- Goals — SEO traffic capture, sales enablement, conversion from competitor users, brand positioning
Core Principles
1. Honesty Builds Trust
Acknowledge competitor strengths, be accurate about your limitations, don't misrepresent competitor features — readers are comparing and will verify claims.
2. Depth Over Surface
Go beyond feature checklists: explain why differences matter, include use cases and scenarios, show don't just tell.
3. Help Them Decide
Different tools fit different needs. Be clear about who you're best for and who the competitor is best for. Reduce evaluation friction.
4. Modular Content Architecture
Centralize competitor data — single source of truth per competitor so updates propagate to all pages.
Page Formats
Format 1: [Competitor] Alternative (Singular)
Search intent: Actively looking to switch from a specific competitor
URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor] or /[competitor]-alternative
Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternative", "alternative to [Competitor]", "switch from [Competitor]"
Page structure:
- Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
- Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning)
- Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing)
- Who should switch (and who shouldn't)
- Migration path
- Social proof from switchers
- CTA
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.
- yesterday First seen · 219 lines · 1,639 tokens per session scan A 49b4915a89f9
competitor-alternatives is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository rajitsaha/100xprism (10 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,639 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
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.
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling 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.