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/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/pair-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/rajitsaha/100xprism/pair-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/rajitsaha/100xprism/pair-loop/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/rajitsaha/100xprism/pair-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/rajitsaha/100xprism/pair-loop.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 | $0.00030 | $0.01703 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00851 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
pair-loop scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pair-Loop — Coder <-> Reviewer Handoff
Runs a formal review loop between a coder and a reviewer (default: you as coder,
Codex as reviewer — swap via ~/.100xprism/config.json's pair_loop section).
Three vendors are supported — claude, codex, cursor — as either role.
Each round is recorded in HANDOFF.md and self-instrumented into a cost
manifest the token dashboard reads. Do NOT ask for permission to start or to
run rounds — only stop for the outcomes listed in "When to stop" below.
Step 1 — Start
PROJECT_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
cd "$PROJECT_ROOT"
python3 ~/100xprism/scripts/pair-loop.py start --task "<one-line task description>"
If this fails with a "dirty" error, commit or stash first — do not force-start
on uncommitted work. Save the printed run_id, handoff_path, max_rounds,
coder, and reviewer — you'll pass run_id to every subsequent command.
Step 2 — Budget check (before every round)
python3 ~/100xprism/scripts/pair-loop.py budget-check --run "$RUN_ID"
Exit code 2 means the per-run budget cap is hit — STOP and ask the user
whether to continue or stop; do not proceed to another round silently. Exit
code 0 with "level": "warn" in the output means print a one-line warning
and continue.
Step 3 — Coder round
Implement the task (or address the reviewer's findings from the prior round). Run the project's quick checks (tests + lint) before recording the round. Do not commit — leave all changes in the working tree so review diffs stay accurate across rounds; commit only in Step 5 (PR phase). Then:
python3 ~/100xprism/scripts/pair-loop.py coder-done --run "$RUN_ID" \
--summary "<what you implemented/fixed, files touched, how you verified it>" \
--findings-addressed <N>
Step 4 — Reviewer round
python3 ~/100xprism/scripts/pair-loop.py review --run "$RUN_ID"
This shells out to the configured reviewer and returns
{"verdict":, "findings": [...], "fallback_used":, "reviewer_tool":, "reviewer_model":, "same_model_conflict":}.
reviewer_tool is the vendor that actually ran — with three vendors, do not
assume it equals pair_loop.reviewer; check it, especially when
fallback_used is true.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 129 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A d3242fc5e29c
pair-loop is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository rajitsaha/100xprism (10 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,703 once invoked, about $0.0002 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-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.
control-plane-descriptors
Control plane descriptor and instance implementation patterns.