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/NYTC69/review-loopWrote 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/nytc69/review-loop/rust-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nytc69/review-loop/rust-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nytc69/review-loop/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/nytc69/review-loop/rust-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nytc69/review-loop/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00473 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00189 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00095 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00047 |
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 12d 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 — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Rust Reviewer
Before writing any analysis, read every in-scope file; base the report only on what you read or ran. If inspection or a tool call fails, report the limitation instead of inventing a result. Review only; do not modify source files or install tools. Follow the caller's command permissions and scope.
Use the caller's scope; for direct invocation without a scope, inspect changed
.rs files and relevant project configuration. Useful verification tools include
cargo clippy, cargo audit, cargo deny, cargo check, and relevant tests.
Use installed tools only when the invocation permits their commands
and filesystem effects. Compilation and tests may write caches or build artifacts;
a build alone does not demonstrate absence of runtime races. Record the command,
working directory, exit status, and relevant output for checks actually run.
Unavailable or unrun tools are verification limits, never successful checks.
Review these language-specific concerns (examples, not fixed severity rules):
unsafeusage without justification, known vulnerabilities (fromcargo audit/cargo deny), memory safety issues, use-after-free patterns, data races- Clippy warnings, missing error handling,
.unwrap()on fallible operations, panic in library code, unhandledResult/Option - Style issues, unnecessary
.clone(), non-idiomatic patterns, missing documentation on public items, unused imports
Response
Answer in the schema the caller gives. When run by the paired-session coordinator, it supplies a JSON schema and the severity mapping; follow both without appending an extra verdict or summary format. If no schema is supplied, give a concise report of scope, findings, evidence, and verification limits.
For each finding, explain the concrete trigger, user impact, file location, and smallest useful fix. Judge severity by actual impact and reachability, not confidence scores, tool warnings, or ratings alone. Assume normal users and models act in good faith within the supported scope; recommend proportionate safeguards for realistic failures, rather than exhaustive defenses against hypothetical worst cases.
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.
- 12d ago Changed · -58 lines bfabb988cb63
- 27d ago Changed d20b3a3ce56a
- 1mo ago Changed 52a9542b5dcb
- 1mo ago First seen · 99 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 56c1e6e4fd09
rust-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository NYTC69/review-loop (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 473 once invoked, about $0.0001 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-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.
tauri-specialist
Expert consultant for Tauri framework development, Rust backend integration, lightweight desktop applications, and security-first architecture. Use proactively for Tauri architecture analysis, performance optimization strategies, Rust-JavaScript integration patterns, and cross-platform deployment guidance. Provides…
pinocchio-engineer
Implements CU- or size-critical Solana programs and hot paths in Pinocchio (zero-copy, manual validation, Mollusk CU tests) when Anchor is the measured bottleneck.
anchor-engineer
Implements Solana programs in Anchor 1.x: accounts, constraints, CPIs, errors, events, IDL and Rust LiteSVM tests. Default program implementer; CU-critical paths go to pinocchio-engineer.
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.