RuleStack

Configs

Stacks

Compare

Diff

RuleStack

Configs

Stacks

Compare

Diff

Read API

RuleStack

Configs

Stacks

Compare

Diff

Read API

Configs/Cursor rules/compozy/gograph

Cursor rule

.cursor/rules/task-review.mdc

[object Object]

Cursor rules

Quality

69/100

Scores the file, not the repository.

Length

786 words

10 headings · 7 code blocks

Repository

9

— · pushed 389 days ago

Last changed

3 days ago

First indexed 3 days ago.
compozy/gograph/.cursor/rules/task-review.mdcRawGitHub
1---
2description:
3globs:
4alwaysApply: true
5---
6# Task Completion Workflow with Zen MCP
7 
8<critical_requirement>
9**MANDATORY:** Before marking any task as complete, you MUST follow this exact workflow to ensure code quality:
10</critical_requirement>
11 
12<workflow_overview>
13**Enhanced Quality Assurance Steps:**
141. **Task Definition Validation** - Verify alignment with task, PRD, and tech spec
152. **Rules Analysis & Code Review** - Analyze applicable rules and perform comprehensive review
163. **Issue Resolution** - Address all identified problems
174. **Pre-Commit Validation** - Final validation before commit
185. **Task Completion** - Mark task as complete only after successful validation
19</workflow_overview>
20 
21## 1. Task Definition Validation
22 
23<mandatory_step>
24**FIRST:** Verify the implementation aligns with requirements:
25</mandatory_step>
26 
27- **Task Definition:** Review the specific task file (e.g., `tasks/prd-[feature-slug]/[task_number]_task.md`)
28- **PRD Alignment:** Check against the Product Requirements Document (`tasks/prd-[feature-slug]/_prd.md`)
29- **Tech Spec Compliance:** Ensure implementation follows the Technical Specification (`tasks/prd-[feature-slug]/_techspec.md`)
30 
31```
32Verify that task [task_number] implementation fully satisfies:
331. The specific requirements defined in the task file
342. The business objectives from the PRD
353. The technical specifications and architecture requirements
364. All acceptance criteria and success metrics
37```
38 
39## 2. Rules Analysis & Code Review with Zen MCP
40 
41<mandatory_step>
42**Analyze applicable rules first, then perform comprehensive code review:**
43</mandatory_step>
44 
45### 2.1 Rules Analysis
46```
47Analyze all Cursor rules that apply to the changed files for task [task_number]:
48- Identify which .cursor/rules/*.mdc files are relevant to the implementation
49- List the specific coding standards, patterns, and requirements that apply
50- Check for any rule violations or areas needing attention
51```
52 
53### 2.2 Multi-Model Code Review
54 
55<mandatory_step>
56Use the criteria from [`review-checklist.mdc`](mdc:.cursor/rules/review-checklist.mdc) as the basis for all code reviews:
57</mandatory_step>
58 
59<critical>
60**MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS:**
61- **ALWAYS** check dependent files APIs before write tests to avoid write wrong code
62- **ALWAYS** verify against PRD and tech specs - NEVER make assumptions
63- **NEVER** use workarounds, especially in tests - implement proper solutions
64- **MUST** follow all established project standards:
65 - Architecture patterns: `.cursor/rules/architecture.mdc`
66 - Go coding standards: `.cursor/rules/go-coding-standards.mdc`
67 - Testing requirements: `.cursor/rules/testing-standards.mdc`
68 - API standards: `.cursor/rules/api-standards.mdc`
69 - Security & quality: `.cursor/rules/quality-security.mdc`
70- **MUST** run `make lint` and `make test` before completing ANY subtask
71- **MUST** follow `.cursor/rules/task-review.mdc` workflow for parent tasks
72**Enforcement:** Violating these standards results in immediate task rejection.
73</critical>
74 
75```
76Use zen for codereview with gemini-2.5-pro-preview-05-06 to analyze the implementation for task [task_number]: [task_title].
77Focus on the review checklist criteria: code quality, security, adherence to project standards, error handling, testing patterns, and maintainability.
78Apply the specific rules identified in step 2.1 during the review.
79```
80 
81```
82Use zen with o3 to perform a logical review of the implementation for task [task_number]: [task_title].
83Analyze the logic, edge cases, and potential issues while considering the applicable coding standards and rules.
84```
85 
86### 2.3 Rules-Specific Review
87```
88Use zen with gemini-2.5-pro-preview-05-06 to review task [task_number] implementation specifically against the identified Cursor rules:
89- Verify compliance with project-specific coding standards
90- Check adherence to architectural patterns and design principles
91- Validate implementation follows the established conventions
92- Ensure all rule-based requirements are met
93```
94 
95## 3. Fix Review Issues
96 
97<mandatory_fixes>
98Address ALL issues identified:
99- Fix critical and high-severity issues immediately
100- Address medium-severity issues unless explicitly justified
101- Document any decisions to skip low-severity issues
102</mandatory_fixes>
103 
104## 4. Pre-Commit Validation
105 
106<mandatory_step>
107**Execute codereview validation with proper parameters:**
108</mandatory_step>
109 
110**Required Parameters:**
111- `path`: Current workspace directory (absolute path)
112- `model`: Use `gemini-2.5-pro-preview-05-06` for comprehensive analysis
113- `prompt`: Original task requirements and context
114 
115**Example Implementation:**
116```
117Execute codereview validation for task [task_number]:
118- Path: /path/to/workspace
119- Model: gemini-2.5-pro-preview-05-06
120- Context: Implementation of [task_title] as defined in task requirements
121- Review: Comprehensive validation of all staged and unstaged changes
122```
123 
124**Validation Focus:**
125- Verify implementation matches task requirements
126- Check for bugs, security issues, and incomplete implementations
127- Ensure changes follow project coding standards
128- Validate test coverage and error handling
129- Confirm no code duplication or logic redundancy
130 
131## 5. Mark Task Complete
132 
133**ONLY AFTER** successful validation, update the Markdown task file:
134 
135```markdown
136- [x] 1.0 [task_title] ✅ COMPLETED
137 - [x] 1.1 Implementation completed
138 - [x] 1.2 Task definition, PRD, and tech spec validated
139 - [x] 1.3 Rules analysis and compliance verified
140 - [x] 1.4 Code review completed with Zen MCP
141 - [x] 1.5 Ready for deployment
142```
143 
144## Important Notes
145 
146- **Tool Usage:** Most Zen MCP tools use natural language requests, but **codereview requires structured parameters** (path, model, prompt)
147- **File Paths:** Use absolute paths when referencing files with Zen MCP
148- **Available Models:** `gemini-2.5-pro-preview-05-06` (deep analysis), `o3` (logical reasoning), `flash` (fast responses)
149- **Codereview Parameters:** Always provide absolute workspace path, model selection, and task context for codereview validation
150- **Exceptions:** Only allowed for hotfixes, documentation-only, or config-only changes (must be documented)
151 
152<enforcement_policy>
153**MANDATORY:** This workflow must be followed for every task completion. No exceptions without explicit justification.
154</enforcement_policy>
155 

Commands it names

  • make lint
  • make test

Sections

  • Task Completion Workflow with Zen MCP
  • 1. Task Definition Validation
  • 2. Rules Analysis & Code Review with Zen MCP
  • 2.1 Rules Analysis
  • 2.2 Multi-Model Code Review
  • 2.3 Rules-Specific Review
  • 3. Fix Review Issues
  • 4. Pre-Commit Validation
  • 5. Mark Task Complete
  • Important Notes

What it covers

testing-strategygit-prdo-notagent-behaviour

Stack — with the evidence

typescript

(1.00)

go

(1.00)

docker

(1.00)

node

(0.70)

javascript

(0.60)

bun

(0.60)

github-actions

(0.60)

Glob targeting

  • [object Object]

Format

Cursor rules

The most expressive format here. Many small .mdc files, each with frontmatter declaring when it should load, so a rule about migrations only enters context when a migration is open. Costs the most to maintain and only one editor reads it.

What the corpus says about it

Repository

Owner
compozy
Language
—
License
—
Archived
no

All configs in this repo

Also in compozy/gograph

Diff this repo’s formats

One repository carrying more than one format is the comparison this product exists for: does anyone actually write different content in each file, or is one a copy of the other?

The other instruction files in this repository
RepositoryFormatStackCoversScoreChanged
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/architecture.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5styletesting-strategydependenciesdo-not57/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/api-standards.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5lint-formatapidocs54/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/backwards-compatibility.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5do-notagent-behaviour32/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/compozy-agent-config.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5agent-behaviour45/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/compozy-examples.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5stylearchtypesagent-behaviour58/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/compozy-project-config.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5setupstyle54/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/cursor_rules.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5no sections40/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/compozy-shared-patterns.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5styleagent-behaviour54/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/compozy-task-patterns.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5stylearchagent-behaviour70/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/core-libraries.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5testing-strategydependenciesdo-not60/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/critical-validation.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5no sections24/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/go-coding-standards.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5stylearchdependencies62/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/go-patterns.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5style66/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/no_linebreaks.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5no sections31/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/prd-create.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5stylearchagent-behaviour48/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/prd-tech-spec.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5setuptestarchagent-behaviour56/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/quality-security.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5securityperformancedo-not46/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/review-checklist.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5testing-strategygit52/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/section_comments.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5no sections31/1003 days ago
compozy/gograph.cursor/rules/task-developing.mdc · 9Cursor rulestypescriptgo+5agent-behaviour47/1003 days ago
Diff against .cursor/rules/architecture.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/api-standards.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/backwards-compatibility.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/compozy-agent-config.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/compozy-examples.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/compozy-project-config.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/cursor_rules.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/compozy-shared-patterns.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/compozy-task-patterns.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/core-libraries.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/critical-validation.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/go-coding-standards.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/go-patterns.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/no_linebreaks.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/prd-create.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/prd-tech-spec.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/quality-security.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/review-checklist.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/section_comments.mdc Diff against .cursor/rules/task-developing.mdc

Similar configs

Same format, overlapping stack, ranked by quality.

Same format, overlapping stack, ranked by quality
RepositoryFormatStackCoversScoreChanged
hiromaily/go-crypto-wallet.cursor/rules/typescript.mdc · 126Cursor rulesgobun+5setupbuildtestlint-format+6100/1003 days ago
TechSquidTV/Hermes.cursor/rules/10-hermes-api.mdc · 45Cursor rulestypescriptpytest+15testlint-formatstylearch+5100/1003 days ago
markstev/mark-starter.cursor/rules/frontend.mdc · 0Cursor rulestypescriptturborepo+14setuptestlint-formatstyle+699/1003 days ago
Allymahmoud/case-intake-platform.cursor/rules/frontend.mdc · 0Cursor rulestypescriptturborepo+13setuptestlint-formatstyle+799/1003 days ago
dodgecfr/combatfilms-webapp.cursor/rules/frontend.mdc · 0Cursor rulestypescriptturborepo+15setuptestlint-formatstyle+799/1003 days ago
deifos/clipmira-subtitles.cursor/rules/frontend.mdc · 1Cursor rulestypescriptnextjs+5setuptestlint-formatstyle+799/1003 days ago
langflow-ai/langflow.cursor/rules/docs_development.mdc · 153kCursor rulespythonnode+16setupbuildtestlint-format+797/1003 days ago
TechSquidTV/Hermes.cursor/rules/20-hermes-api-tests.mdc · 45Cursor rulestypescriptpytest+15teststyletesting-strategysecurity+397/1003 days ago
RuleStack

Built by

Kynth Studio

Directory

Configs
Stacks
Compare formats
Diff two configs
Best AGENTS.md examples

Formats

AGENTS.md
CLAUDE.md
Cursor rules
Copilot instructions

Reference

Read API
Corpus health
Privacy Policy
Terms

RuleStack

RuleStack

Built by

Kynth Studio

Directory

Configs
Stacks
Compare formats
Diff two configs
Best AGENTS.md examples

Formats

AGENTS.md
CLAUDE.md
Cursor rules
Copilot instructions

Reference

Read API
Corpus health
Privacy Policy
Terms

RuleStack

RuleStack

Built by

Kynth Studio

Directory

Configs
Stacks
Compare formats
Diff two configs
Best AGENTS.md examples

Formats

AGENTS.md
CLAUDE.md
Cursor rules
Copilot instructions

Reference

Read API
Corpus health
Privacy Policy
Terms

RuleStack