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/zxpmail/ReqForgeWrote 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/zxpmail/reqforge/reqforge-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/zxpmail/reqforge/reqforge-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/zxpmail/reqforge/reqforge-review/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/zxpmail/reqforge/reqforge-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/zxpmail/reqforge/reqforge-review.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 | $0.00313 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00125 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
reqforge-review 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
Code Review
Full skill definition: .cursor/rules/skills/code-review/SKILL.md
Two-Stage Review
Stage 1: Spec Compliance Check each Product-Spec.md requirement item by item:
- Every feature listed in the Spec must have corresponding code implementation
- UI consistency check (if design mockups exist, verify pixel accuracy)
- All states covered: loading, empty, error, edge cases
- If Stage 1 fails → dispatch feedback-observer with
review_stage1_fail→ re-implement → re-review from Stage 1
Stage 2: Code Quality
- Naming conventions (PascalCase/camelCase/kebab-case)
- TypeScript strict mode, no
any - Files under 300 lines, single responsibility
- No hardcoded secrets, no dangerous functions (eval, innerHTML)
- No Spec drift (code features not in Product Spec)
- Regression check: existing features not broken
- If Stage 2 fails → dispatch feedback-observer with
review_stage2_fail→ bug-fixer fix → re-review from Stage 1
Output Format
- ✅ Fully implemented (with code location)
- ⚠️ Partially implemented (with missing details)
- ❌ Not implemented (with Spec reference)
- 🔴 Security issue (with file + line number)
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 · 34 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5511cbb9ab2c
reqforge-review is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository zxpmail/ReqForge (18 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 313 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
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.
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.
ai-dev-os-check
Checks code changes against AI Dev OS guidelines and automatically fixes violations. Based on benchmark Test 011 — check+fix achieves +9.9 improvement vs report-only (+0.8). Supports git diff (default), staged changes, and branch comparison. Use --dry-run for report-only mode.
ai-dev-os-review
Performs a comprehensive self-review before creating a PR. Combines guideline compliance checking (L3) with design-level review (L2) and philosophical alignment (L1). Unlike @ai-dev-os-check which only checks rules, this also evaluates architecture decisions and code design quality.