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/wiggitywhitney/mcp-commit-storyWrote 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/wiggitywhitney/mcp-commit-story/refactoring_first)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/wiggitywhitney/mcp-commit-story/refactoring_first"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/wiggitywhitney/mcp-commit-story/refactoring_first/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/wiggitywhitney/mcp-commit-story/refactoring_first"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/wiggitywhitney/mcp-commit-story/refactoring_first.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01841 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00736 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00368 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00184 |
Grade A, and why
refactoring_first 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 1mo 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 — 223 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactoring-First Development Approach
Rule 1: Always Check for Existing Implementations First
Before creating new code, always search for existing implementations that can be refactored:
-
✅ DO: Search the codebase first
# Search for existing functions grep -r "collect_chat_history" --include="*.py" grep -r "daily_summary" --include="*.py" grep -r "git_hook" --include="*.py" -
❌ DON'T: Assume functionality doesn't exist
# Don't create new functions without checking def new_chat_collector(): # BAD - might already exist pass
Rule 2: Refactor Over Rewrite
For tasks that mention "implement" or "create", first check if the functionality exists:
✅ Refactoring Patterns:
# ✅ DO: Refactor existing placeholder
def collect_chat_history(since_commit=None, max_messages_back=150):
"""EXISTING function - refactor the TODO implementation"""
# TODO: Implement actual chat collection # ← REFACTOR THIS
try:
# Wire up SQLite reader into existing placeholder
workspace_path = get_cursor_workspace_path()
chat_data = query_cursor_chat_database(workspace_path, max_messages_back)
return format_chat_history(chat_data)
except Exception as e:
logger.error(f"Chat collection failed: {e}")
return None
# ✅ DO: Extend existing functionality
def collect_chat_history(since_commit=None, max_messages_back=150, filter_by_git=False):
"""MODIFY existing function to add new capability"""
chat_history = [...existing implementation...]
# ADD new filtering capability
if filter_by_git:
return filter_chat_by_git_relevance(chat_history, get_git_diff())
return chat_history
❌ Anti-Patterns:
# ❌ DON'T: Create parallel implementations
def new_chat_collector(): # BAD - collect_chat_history() already exists
pass
# ❌ DON'T: Rewrite working code
def generate_journal_entry_v2(): # BAD - v1 works fine, refactor it instead
pass
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 223 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A ff6626506348
refactoring_first is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository wiggitywhitney/mcp-commit-story (15 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,841 tokens. 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 2026-08-30.
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.
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.
config-validation-and-normalization
Config validation and normalization responsibilities (defineConfig normalizes, the orm section schema validates and resolves paths, the loader reports per-section diagnostics).