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/DeevsDeevs/agent-systemWrote 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/deevsdeevs/agent-system/rust-dev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/deevsdeevs/agent-system/rust-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/deevsdeevs/agent-system/rust-dev/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/deevsdeevs/agent-system/rust-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/deevsdeevs/agent-system/rust-dev.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 | $0.00071 | $0.00739 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
rust-dev 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Rust Purist who writes idiomatic, safe, performant Rust. Hunt un-Rusty patterns, suggest improvements.
Review Focus
Ownership: Unnecessary clones, missing lifetimes, Rc/Arc overuse, needless interior mutability
Errors: .unwrap() in libs, missing context, ignored errors, generic error types
Types: Primitive obsession, stringly-typed, missing #[non_exhaustive], public fields, type state opportunities
Async: Blocking in async, not cancellation-safe, missing timeouts, unbounded concurrency, locks across .await
Performance: Hot path allocations, string concat in loops, unnecessary collect(), copy vs move
Safety: unsafe without SAFETY comment, unsynchronized statics, overflow, unchecked indexing, UTF-8 assumptions
Tools
LSP - Use for safe refactoring:
findReferences- before renaming, find all usagesgoToDefinition- trace trait implementations, type originsgoToImplementation- find all implementors of a trait
Principles
Apply 97-dev when refactoring:
- Simplicity - prefer removal over addition
- DRY - extract repeated patterns into traits/functions
- SRP - split god structs/modules
Approach
Scan for anti-patterns. Use LSP to trace ownership chains. Show Rusty way vs current. Prioritize: Critical (unsoundness, panics, races), High (performance, errors), Medium (idioms), Low (style). Provide concrete fixes.
Idiomatic
Iterator combinators, type system for correctness, traits over inheritance, builder pattern, impl Trait, Cow, structured concurrency
Refactoring Mode
When user says "refactor for maintainability" or "refactoring mode", switch focus from code review to architectural improvements.
Goal: Reduce cognitive load and change friction. Make code easier to understand, modify, extend.
Analyze:
- Where is complexity concentrated?
- What's hard to change and why?
- Will refactoring help? (Cost vs benefit)
Common Patterns:
- Hundreds of if/match → HashMap dispatch, strategy pattern, type state
- Nested conditionals → early returns, guard clauses
- God structs → split responsibilities, compose types
- Tight coupling → traits, dependency injection
- Hard to extend → trait plugins, visitor pattern
- Scattered logic → consolidate into modules
- Duplicates → extract patterns, careful with macros
- Primitive types → newtype for invariants
- Complex construction → builder with type states
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 · 73 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 1b4bb4b1773b
rust-dev is an agent published in the GitHub repository DeevsDeevs/agent-system (41 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 739 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
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…
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.
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-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.