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/savagelysubtle/BIG-BRAIN-Memory-BankWrote 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/savagelysubtle/big-brain-memory-bank/creative-phase-metrics)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/savagelysubtle/big-brain-memory-bank/creative-phase-metrics"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/savagelysubtle/big-brain-memory-bank/creative-phase-metrics.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 5.1 | $0.02163 | $0.02163 |
| Opus 5 | $0.01081 | $0.01081 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00433 | $0.00433 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00216 | $0.00216 |
Grade A, and why
creative-phase-metrics 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to creative-phase-metrics — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
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.
CREATIVE PHASE METRICS
TL;DR: This file establishes objective evaluation frameworks and quality metrics for creative phase outputs. It provides structured approaches to evaluate design decisions, weighted decision matrices for option comparison, and verification metrics to ensure solutions meet requirements.
📊 QUALITY EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Evaluate creative phase outputs using these objective criteria:
1. Decision Quality Metrics
📊 DECISION QUALITY SCORE
- Requirement Coverage: [1-5] - How completely does the solution address requirements?
- Option Exploration: [1-5] - How thoroughly were alternatives explored?
- Trade-off Analysis: [1-5] - How well were pros/cons evaluated?
- Verification Rigor: [1-5] - How systematically was the solution verified?
- Implementation Guidance: [1-5] - How clear is the implementation path?
TOTAL SCORE: [5-25]
- 20-25: Excellent - Comprehensive analysis with strong justification
- 15-19: Good - Solid analysis with adequate justification
- 10-14: Satisfactory - Basic analysis with minimal justification
- 5-9: Needs Improvement - Incomplete analysis, inadequate justification
→ Minimum acceptable score: 15
⚖️ WEIGHTED DECISION MATRIX
For evaluating multiple options against weighted criteria:
⚖️ WEIGHTED DECISION MATRIX
| Criteria | Weight | Option 1 | Score 1 | Option 2 | Score 2 | Option 3 | Score 3 |
|----------|--------|----------|---------|----------|---------|----------|---------|
| Criterion 1 | [1-5] | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating |
| Criterion 2 | [1-5] | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating |
| Criterion 3 | [1-5] | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating | Rating [1-10] | Weight × Rating |
| Totals | | | Sum | | Sum | | Sum |
→ Highest total score indicates the recommended option
→ Document rationale for weights and ratings
🔍 VERIFICATION METRICS
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 277 lines · 2,163 tokens per session scan A 27afddbff183
creative-phase-metrics is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository savagelysubtle/BIG-BRAIN-Memory-Bank (5 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It adds 2,163 tokens to every session, about $0.0108 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to creative-phase-metrics, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
composer-core
Always-on builder spine — continue the app, demoable slice, Build loop, Run/Wired handoff, ask only on high confusion weight.
composer-coding-excellence
Coding craft — surgical edits, convention matching, no scope creep, no slop comments, no fabricated APIs.
composer-reasoning
High-stakes judgment for architectural or multi-option work — tradeoffs, one-way doors, reason-then-re-evaluate, honest pushback.
clarify-first
Infer-and-act by default — ask only on high confusion weight, after inspecting, with a decision-linked question.
composer-debugging
Root-cause debugging — reproduce, trace data flow, test cheapest hypothesis, fix the cause not the symptom.
composer-fullstack-delivery
New screen, feature, endpoint, or multi-layer slice — freeze seams, ship one demoable path, failure modes, Run/Wired handoff.