Anima / rules
Cursor rule1k starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
For bug fixes and regression-sensitive work, use tests to reproduce, protect, and verify behavior whenever practical. Do not just patch the symptom. First understand the failing behavior, then protect against its return. Prefer tests that: After fixing a bug, also consider: A bug fix is stronger when it leaves behind proof that the bug will be caught if it returns.
We split this Test-First-For-Bugs-And-Regression.mdc into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 9
Do not just patch the symptom.
- Distinctive: line 18
run adjacent relevant checks to guard against regressions
- Distinctive: line 22
prefer targeted tests over broad blind runs at first
- Distinctive: line 23
add regression coverage for real bugs when practical
- Distinctive: line 24
test the root behavior, not just incidental implementation details
- Distinctive: line 26
keep tests readable and aligned with project conventions
- Distinctive: line 41
document the failure mode clearly in your reasoning
- Distinctive: line 43
add a test if the codebase supports it and the scope allows it
- Distinctive: line 47
After fixing a bug, also consider:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 6,350 Cursor rule files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
--- alwaysApply: true --- For bug fixes and regression-sensitive work, use tests to reproduce, protect, and verify behavior whenever practical. ## Core rule Do not just patch the symptom. First understand the failing behavior, then protect against its return. ## Preferred workflow for bug fixes 1. identify the failing behavior clearly 2. locate or create the most targeted test that captures it 3. confirm the failure when feasible 4. implement the fix 5. re-run the test 6. run adjacent relevant checks to guard against regressions ## Testing principles - prefer targeted tests over broad blind runs at first - add regression coverage for real bugs when practical - test the root behavior, not just incidental implementation details - include edge cases if they are directly related to the failure - keep tests readable and aligned with project conventions ## When adding a new test Prefer tests that: - fail before the fix - pass after the fix - clearly describe the intended behavior - are narrow enough to diagnose future regressions quickly ## If a test cannot be added immediately Then still: - document the failure mode clearly in your reasoning - validate the fix using the strongest available check - add a test if the codebase supports it and the scope allows it ## Regression mindset After fixing a bug, also consider: - nearby code paths using the same logic - boundary conditions - serialization or interface effects - consumer-facing side effects - whether similar bugs could exist in sibling flows ## Completion rule A bug fix is stronger when it leaves behind proof that the bug will be caught if it returns.
Where files are headingNew Cursor rule files have more rules about planning and tracking tasks, and fewer about code style.
Of the Cursor rule files we read, the 3,978 first seen in the last six months, against the older ones: the kind of rule that gained most share, and the kind that lost most. About files like this in general, not this one, and an estimate, since a kind is a pattern in the words.
In this repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/Architecture-Guardrails.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Branch-And-Commit-Workflow.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Changelog-And-Versioning-Discipline.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Change-Scope-Control.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Community-Standards-And-Contributor-Experience.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Continuous-Execution-Until-Done.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Dependency-And-Interface-Safety.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Docs-And-Runbook-Sync.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/English-First-Engineering-Workflow.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/GitHub-MCP-Available.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/License-And-Dependency-Compliance.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Migration-And-Backward-Compatibility.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Open-Source-Contribution-Workflow.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Pull-Request-Readiness-And-Reviewer-Hygiene.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Repo-Navigation-And-Module-Ownership.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Secrets-And-Environment-Safety.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Self-Install-Tools-And-MCP-When-Necessary.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/Verification-And-Regression-Checks.mdcCursor rule
- custom_skill_bde0cedaSkill
- custom_skill_f4b0b238Skill
- your-skill-nameSkill
- Workday 8AM Smart Speaker WakeupSkill
- air_conditionerSkill
- air_purifierSkill
- coordinatorSkill
- device_discoverySkill
- humidifierSkill
- lightSkill
- skill_creatorSkill
- speakerSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

