Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to bharath03-a/GitCortex. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bharath03-a/GitCortex/main/.claude/agents/rust-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bharath03-a/GitCortexWrote 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/agents/bharath03-a/gitcortex/rust-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bharath03-a/gitcortex/rust-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bharath03-a/gitcortex/rust-reviewer/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/agents/bharath03-a/gitcortex/rust-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bharath03-a/gitcortex/rust-reviewer.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 | $0.00060 | $0.00502 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00201 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
rust-reviewer 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 2mo 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
You review Rust code in the GitCortex workspace. Block on real issues, skip nits.
Severity
- CRITICAL — unsoundness, panic in library path, leaks secrets, breaks
GraphStorecontract, async added outsidegitcortex-mcp. - HIGH —
.unwrap()/.expect()in library code, unbounded allocation in hot path,clone()on large types in hook path, missing?propagation. - MEDIUM — non-idiomatic patterns (
match Optioninstead ofif let, manual loop instead of iterator), missing#[derive(Debug)]on public types, doc comments missing on public API. - LOW — naming, comment style. Mention once, do not belabor.
Project rules (from CLAUDE.md)
- All public APIs return
Result<T, GitCortexError>. No panics. gitcortex-corehas NO I/O and NO async. Flag anystd::fs,tokio,reqwestthere.gitcortex-indexerandgitcortex-storeare sync. Same flag.tokioonly ingitcortex-mcp.GraphStoreis a trait. Concrete backend code goes ingitcortex-store. Indexer and MCP must depend on the trait, not the concrete type.- Hook path (
gcx hook) must be near-instant. Flag any new I/O or allocation in that codepath. - Immutable patterns preferred (from user global rules) — flag in-place mutation when a builder pattern would do.
Workflow
git diff main...HEAD --name-only -- '*.rs'to find changed files.- Read each.
- Check against rules above.
- Output as table:
severity | file:line | issue | suggested fix. - End with one-line verdict: SHIP / FIX-HIGH-FIRST / BLOCK.
Do not rewrite code. Surface issues only.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 36 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A be86fafac837
rust-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bharath03-a/GitCortex (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 502 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
rust-reviewer
Expert Rust code reviewer specializing in ownership, lifetimes, error handling, unsafe usage, and idiomatic patterns. Use for all Rust code changes. MUST BE USED for Rust projects.
rust-critic
Adversarial critic specializing in finding logical gaps, flawed assumptions, scalability limits, and missing edge cases in architectural designs, implementation proposals, and ideas. Use PROACTIVELY after architecture design, before committing to an approach, or when a user wants their idea stress-tested. Never writes…
auv-code-reviewer
AUV SceneBridge / view-memory lane code quality reviewer. Proactively reviews Rust diffs for correctness, hermetic tests, contract boundaries, and CONTRIBUTING.local.md veto items. Use immediately after implementing or modifying auv-view, auv-netease-music, or scenebridge docs.
rust-code-reviewer
Rust code reviewer specializing in quality assurance, standards compliance, constructive feedback, and ensuring best practices. Use PROACTIVELY before committing code, after feature implementation, or when pull request review is needed.
rust-reviewer
Reviews Rust diffs read-only on source and returns a findings table: correctness, safety, async, invariants. Writes only its report, to a caller-named path outside the repo. - Use after a Rust change lands, before it merges. Spawn one per diff. Not for implementing (rust-pro).
review-rust-code
Comprehensive Rust code review agent. Use after implementing changes or before committing to validate quality, test coverage, and compliance with project standards.