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/timurgaleev/vibestackWrote 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/timurgaleev/vibestack/git)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/timurgaleev/vibestack/git"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/timurgaleev/vibestack/git/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/timurgaleev/vibestack/git"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/timurgaleev/vibestack/git.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 | $0.00519 | $0.00519 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00208 | $0.00208 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00104 | $0.00104 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00052 | $0.00052 |
Grade A, and why
git 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 25d 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Git Workflow
CRITICAL: Commit & Push Policy
NEVER commit or push without explicit user permission.
- Only run
git commitwhen explicitly requested by the user - Only run
git pushwhen explicitly requested by the user - Do not auto-commit after code changes
- Only proceed when there is a clear instruction such as "commit"
Never, unless the user explicitly asks
- Committing secrets (
.env, API keys, tokens), binaries, or generated files - Bypassing hooks or signing (
--no-verify,--no-gpg-sign,--no-signoff) - Reverting unrelated changes in the working tree
Destructive & Irreversible Operations
Run these only when the user clearly asks. State the blast radius first and wait for confirmation:
git reset --hard,git checkout -- <path>,git restore --git push --force,git push --force-with-lease- Branch deletion (
git branch -D, deleting a remote branch) - Amending or rebasing published commits
git clean -f
Commit Message Format
<type>: <description>
<optional body>
Types: feat, fix, refactor, docs, test, chore, perf, ci
Pull Request Workflow
When creating PRs:
- Analyze full commit history (not just latest commit)
- Use
git diff [base-branch]...HEADto see all changes - Draft comprehensive PR summary
- Include test plan with TODOs
- Push with
-uflag if new branch
Feature Implementation Workflow
-
Plan First
- Run
/plan-eng-review(or/autoplan) to lock the implementation plan - Identify dependencies and risks
- Break down into phases
- Run
-
Implementation
- Write tests for new functionality
- Implement functionality
- Run tests to verify correctness
- Every new test answers the value bar: what behavior it protects, what regression makes it fail
-
Code Review
- Run
/reviewfor quality and security review - Address CRITICAL and HIGH issues
- Fix MEDIUM issues when possible
- Run
-
Commit & Push
- Detailed commit messages
- Follow conventional commits format
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.
- 25d ago Changed · +1 lines · +14 tokens per session cbd34ed6716d
- 1mo ago First seen · 74 lines · 505 tokens per session scan A bddcc850c904
git is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository timurgaleev/vibestack (7 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 519 tokens to every session, about $0.0021 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 2026-09-19.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
git
Git workflow and commit conventions.
git-workflow
Git workflow: commits, branches, PRs, history management.
no-ai-contributors
Never add AI tools as git authors or project contributors.
commits
Conventional Commits standards for clear, semantic commit messages.
git-discipline
Commit, push, and branching rules. Owns ALL git behavior; other files state only their deviations.
git-commit-standards
Enforce structured Git commit messages.