piper-morgan-product / rules
Cursor rule8 starsChanged 7 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Completion discipline
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 4,181 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 repository39 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/architecture-patterns.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/github-tracking.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/programmer-briefing.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/verification-first.mdcCursor rule
- ab-a-isolationSkill
- assign-sprint-safelySkill
- audit-cascadeSkill
- brief-coding-agentSkill
- check-mailboxSkill
- cleanup-dev-activeSkill
- close-issue-properlySkill
- cohort-attention-rollupSkill
- compost-reviewSkill
- continue-narrativeSkill
- create-omnibusSkill
- create-session-logSkill
- cut-releaseSkill
- delete-module-safelySkill
- deliver-mailSkill
- discovered-work-captureSkill
- doc-sync-sweepSkill
- draft-blog-postSkill
- draft-weekly-shipSkill
- duty-cycle-tickSkill
- narrative-verificationSkill
- piper-draft-issueSkill
- piper-draft-specSkill
- piper-sprint-planSkill
- piper-stakeholder-updateSkill
- piper-synthesize-feedbackSkill
- propose-featureSkill
- publish-to-blogSkill
- query-github-boardSkill
- template-auditSkill
- trust-checkSkill
- update-calendarSkill
- update-current-stateSkill
- update-piperSkill
The file
We split this completion-discipline.md into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
If you're uncertain about a decision but uncomfortable expressing it directly, just say: "Time Lord Alert" and the PM will pause for …
- Distinctive: line 27
If you catch yourself thinking "this is good enough" → STOP and escalate immediately.
- Distinctive: line 31
If ANY of these occur, you MUST stop immediately and escalate to PM - no exceptions:
- Distinctive: line 54
Read CLAUDE.md for methodology
- Very specific: line 55
Check shared_types.py for ALL enums
- Distinctive: line 56
Use Context7 MCP for latest docs
- Distinctive: line 57
STOP if assumptions needed
- Distinctive: line 58
Don't do Code's assigned work
- Distinctive: line 65
No deferrals without PM approval
- Distinctive: line 66
Update GitHub descriptions (not just comments)
- Distinctive: line 71
If ANY occur, STOP and report to PM:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 6,668 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
CURSOR COMPLETION REQUIREMENTS
Rule #1: No exceptions without PM approval
Breaking these rules = session failure. Ask first if uncertain.
The "Time Lord Alert" escape hatch
If you're uncertain about a decision but uncomfortable expressing it directly, just say: "Time Lord Alert" and the PM will pause for discussion. This is your face-saving signal - use it freely.
Anti-completion-bias protocol
YOU MUST NEVER:
- Declare completion without 100% of acceptance criteria met
- Rationalize gaps as "minor" or "not critical"
- Skip STOP conditions because work is "almost done"
- Defer tasks without explicit PM approval
- Claim "tests pass" without providing terminal output
If you catch yourself thinking "this is good enough" → STOP and escalate immediately.
Mandatory STOP conditions (17 total)
If ANY of these occur, you MUST stop immediately and escalate to PM - no exceptions:
- Infrastructure doesn't match gameplan assumptions
- Method implementation <100% complete
- Pattern already exists in catalog
- Tests fail for any reason
- Configuration assumptions needed
- GitHub issue missing or unassigned
- Can't provide verification evidence
- ADR conflicts with approach
- Resource not found after searching
- User data at risk
- Completion bias detected (claiming without proof)
- Rationalizing gaps as "minor" or "optional"
- GitHub tracking not working
- Single agent seems sufficient (multi-agent is default)
- Git operations failing
- Server state unexpected or unclear
- UI behavior can't be visually confirmed
CRITICAL: YOU DO NOT DECIDE which failures are "critical" - the PM decides. Your job is to report the issue, provide options, and wait for PM guidance.
Context requirements (unchanged)
- Read CLAUDE.md for methodology
- Check shared_types.py for ALL enums
- Use Context7 MCP for latest docs
- STOP if assumptions needed
- Don't do Code's assigned work
Completion protocol (NEW)
All phases must be 100% complete before moving forward
- Evidence required (terminal output, not claims)
- No deferrals without PM approval
- Update GitHub descriptions (not just comments)
- Session logs must document all decisions
STOP conditions (immediate escalation)
If ANY occur, STOP and report to PM:
- Tests fail (any failure, don't rationalize)
- Assumptions needed (don't guess)
- Pattern might exist elsewhere (check first)
- Can't verify claims (no evidence available)
- Infrastructure doesn't match expectations
Test failure reporting
If tests fail:
⚠️ STOP - [X] Tests Failing
Errors:
[paste output]
Root cause:
[your analysis]
Options:
1. [approach 1]
2. [approach 2]
Awaiting PM decision.YOU DON'T DECIDE CRITICALITY - PM DOES.
Anti-patterns to avoid
❌ "Tests mostly pass" (all must pass) ❌ "Core functionality works" (everything must work) ❌ "Minor issue, not blocking" (PM decides priority) ❌ Skipping phases without approval ❌ Deferring work without permission
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
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.

