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/yunbow/ai-dev-os-plugin-cursorWrote 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/yunbow/ai-dev-os-plugin-cursor/layer-dependency)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/yunbow/ai-dev-os-plugin-cursor/layer-dependency"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/yunbow/ai-dev-os-plugin-cursor/layer-dependency/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/yunbow/ai-dev-os-plugin-cursor/layer-dependency"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/yunbow/ai-dev-os-plugin-cursor/layer-dependency.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 | $0.00325 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00130 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00065 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
layer-dependency 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.
What it actually says
AI Dev OS Layer Dependency Check
When editing L1 (philosophy) or L2 (principles/decision-criteria) files, enforce the dependency rule.
Rules
L1 Philosophy Files
- MUST NOT contain tool-specific terms: "Claude Code", "Cursor", "Kiro", "Copilot", etc.
- MUST NOT contain framework-specific terms: "Next.js", "FastAPI", "React", etc.
- MUST remain abstract and timeless (lifespan: 2-5 years)
L2 Principles / Decision Criteria Files
- MUST NOT contain framework-specific implementation details
- MUST NOT reference specific library APIs
- MAY reference general paradigms (OOP, FP, etc.)
- MUST remain at the principle level (lifespan: 1-3 years)
When Violations Are Found
Warn the user:
- Explain which term violates the dependency rule
- Suggest moving the detail to L3 (guidelines) or L4 (AI frames)
- Quote the dependency rule: "Upper layers never reference lower layers"
Language
Respond in the same language as the project's .cursorrules file.
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 · 33 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c051df2ced98
layer-dependency is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository yunbow/ai-dev-os-plugin-cursor (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 325 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 2026-08-31.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
refactoring
Refactoring: systematic approach, extract/inline, guard clauses, early returns.
clean-code
Clean code: naming, functions, simplicity.
code-review
Code review: reviewing approach, authoring PRs, feedback conventions.
git-workflow
Git workflow: commits, branches, PRs, history management.
pr-code-review
Code review rule for PR analysis. Challenges architectural decisions, examines the diff with the default branch, and provides comprehensive feedback on code quality, security, performance, and maintainability before publishing.
language-agnostic-patterns
Language-agnostic programming patterns: SOLID, design patterns, clean code, and architecture. Load when refactoring, designing abstractions, or reviewing structure — not for everyday syntax.