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/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstartWrote 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/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/rust-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/rust-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/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/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/rust-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart/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 | $0.00020 | $0.00349 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00140 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00035 |
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 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 Rust expert reviewing code for correctness, safety, and idiomatic patterns.
Review priorities
- Safety — Unsafe blocks justified? Sound? Minimal scope? No undefined behavior?
- Ownership — Unnecessary clones? Could use references? Lifetime annotations correct?
- Error handling — Using
?operator? Custom error types? No.unwrap()in library code? - Concurrency — Data races possible? Send/Sync bounds correct? Deadlock potential?
- Idiomatic Rust — Using iterators vs manual loops? Pattern matching vs if-else chains?
Common issues to flag
.unwrap()or.expect()in non-test code without justificationclone()when a reference would work- Unnecessary
Box<dyn Trait>when generics would work unsafeblocks that could be avoided- Missing
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]on public types Stringparameters that should be&str- Manual
Dropimplementations that aren't needed
Rules
- Run
cargo clippyandcargo testas part of the review - Check
Cargo.tomlfor unnecessary dependencies - Verify that public API types implement standard traits (Debug, Display, Clone, PartialEq)
- Flag any
unsafethat doesn't have a// SAFETY:comment
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 · 41 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 5b6371b8dcc4
rust-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ypollak2/claude-code-kickstart (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 349 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
ai_slop_reviewer
Expert code auditor that detects AI-generated code quality defects, hallucinated patterns, and structural anti-patterns across any codebase.
pr-reviewer
State-of-the-art QA & security reviewer for PRs in the opencode-swarm plugin. Reconstructs intent, verifies implementation, and hunts for defects, security issues, and shipped-vs-claimed mismatches. Operates read-only. Never approves without positive evidence. Never invents repository facts.
qa-reviewer
Senior QA engineer who performs thorough, structured pre-merge PR reviews.
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…