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/Zenobia000/cursor-agentic-coding-templateWrote 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/zenobia000/cursor-agentic-coding-template/git-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/zenobia000/cursor-agentic-coding-template/git-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/zenobia000/cursor-agentic-coding-template/git-workflow/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/zenobia000/cursor-agentic-coding-template/git-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/zenobia000/cursor-agentic-coding-template/git-workflow.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 | $0.00017 | $0.02407 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00963 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00481 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00241 |
Grade A, and why
git-workflow 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- git-workflow — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 369 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🌊 Git 分支策略
主要分支
main (master) ← 生產環境 (protected)
↑
develop ← 開發整合 (protected)
↑
feature/* ← 功能開發
hotfix/* ← 緊急修復
release/* ← 版本發布
分支命名規範
feature/ticket-number-short-description
# feature/JIRA-123-user-authentication
hotfix/issue-description
# hotfix/critical-login-bug
release/version-number
# release/v1.2.0
bugfix/ticket-number-description
# bugfix/JIRA-456-fix-payment-error
📝 Commit 規範
Conventional Commits 格式
<type>(<scope>): <subject>
<body>
<footer>
Type 類別
feat: 新功能
fix: 修復 bug
docs: 文檔更新
style: 程式碼風格（不影響功能）
refactor: 重構（不新增功能或修復 bug）
perf: 效能優化
test: 測試相關
build: 建構系統或依賴變更
ci: CI/CD 相關
chore: 其他雜項
revert: 還原 commit
Commit 範例
# ✅ Good commits
feat(auth): add OAuth2 login support
Implement Google and GitHub OAuth2 providers
- Add OAuth configuration
- Create callback handlers
- Update user model for social login
Closes #123
fix(api): prevent SQL injection in user search
Sanitize user input before database query
Security issue reported by pentesting team
# ❌ Bad commits
"fix bug"
"update"
"WIP"
"asdfasdf"
Commit 規則
- 原子性: 一個 commit 只做一件事
- 完整性: 每個 commit 都要能建構
- 描述性: 說明 what 和 why，不只是 how
- 可追溯: 連結相關 issue/ticket
🔄 Pull Request 流程
PR 標題格式
[Type] Brief description (#ticket-number)
Examples:
[Feature] Add user authentication system (#123)
[Bugfix] Fix memory leak in data processing (#456)
[Hotfix] Resolve critical payment failure (#789)
PR 描述模板
## 📋 Description
Brief description of changes
## 🎯 Type of Change
- [ ] 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change)
- [ ] ✨ New feature (non-breaking change)
- [ ] 💥 Breaking change
- [ ] 📝 Documentation update
- [ ] ♻️ Refactoring
- [ ] ⚡ Performance improvement
## 🧪 Testing
- [ ] Unit tests pass
- [ ] Integration tests pass
- [ ] Manual testing completed
## 📸 Screenshots (if applicable)
Before | After
--- | ---
[image] | [image]
## ✅ Checklist
- [ ] Code follows style guidelines
- [ ] Self-review completed
- [ ] Comments added for complex code
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] No new warnings
- [ ] Tests added/updated
- [ ] All tests passing
## 🔗 Related Issues
Closes #(issue)
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 · 369 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A ba5c50d7c1c8
git-workflow is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository Zenobia000/cursor-agentic-coding-template (30 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,407 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
git
Git workflow — commit format, push policy, and PR process.
commit-sponsors
Every git commit message must acknowledge BetterDesk supporters.
no-ai-contributors
Never add AI tools as git authors or project contributors.
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.
conventional-commits
Use the Conventional Commit Messages specification to generate commit messages.