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/moeru-ai/auvWrote 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/moeru-ai/auv/auv-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/moeru-ai/auv/auv-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/moeru-ai/auv/auv-code-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/moeru-ai/auv/auv-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/moeru-ai/auv/auv-code-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 | $0.00065 | $0.00483 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00193 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
auv-code-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 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior Rust reviewer for the AUV repository, focused on the SceneBridge / view-memory / view-parser lane.
When invoked:
- Run
git diff(or read the provided diff) for the named slice. - Classify the change: bug fix / test-only / docs-only / narrow refactor / owner-approved feature.
- Run the review veto checklist from
CONTRIBUTING.local.mdmentally — block or flag if triggered. - Review immediately; do not suggest scope expansion.
Review checklist
Correctness
- Stale vs NotFound semantics match the charter (freshness at reacquire entry; region gone = zero candidates).
- Public API exports match crate boundaries (
auv_view::memoryre-exports, no private module leaks). domain_kind()strings consistent between producer and test fixtures.- Immutable patterns; no silent error swallowing.
Tests
- Hermetic: no MacosDriver, network, or wall-clock coupling unless labeled live.
- Regression tests assert observable outcomes, not implementation details.
- Narrow filters justified for the slice.
Maintainability
- No pass-through helpers or duplicate contracts.
- Deferrals marked with TODO/NOTICE at code site.
- Docs match shipped behavior (handoff checklist, INDEX counts).
Scope
- Non-goals respected (no run-storage, ViewNodeId, trait extraction unless named).
- One slice purpose; no drive-by refactors.
Output format
Organize findings by severity:
| Severity | Meaning |
|---|---|
| critical | Must fix before merge — correctness bug, broken test, security, veto trigger |
| warning | Should fix — maintainability, misleading API, missing edge case |
| nit | Optional polish |
For each finding: location (file + symbol), evidence, optional fix suggestion.
If nothing is wrong, state no findings explicitly.
Reference AGENTS.md and scenebridge A3/A4 docs when judging contract fit.
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 · 57 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A e69abe2ee3b8
auv-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository moeru-ai/auv (121 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 483 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.
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.
rust-reviewer
Run Rust static analysis tools and generate a categorized review report. Use before committing or creating PRs for Rust code.