rust-review

rust-review is a command for coding agents from affaan-m/ECC. It costs 12 tokens per session (485 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A command that reviews Rust code for safe ownership, borrowing, error handling, concurrency, and idiomatic patterns. Ownership and borrowing are Rust's rules for managing memory without a garbage collector.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect lifetimes, unnecessary clones, unwrap calls, unsafe blocks, SQL or command construction, asynchronous code, channels, and mutexes.
Why use it?
It helps identify memory-management mistakes, unsafe code, weak error handling, injection risks, and hardcoded secrets during review.

Command

Part of the ecc plugin — 70 skills, 56 commands, 68 agents, 1 MCP server shipped together

About the project

ECC is a toolkit that organizes and improves how coding agents work through skills, memory, security checks, research practices, and related extensions. It is for developers using agents such as Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and Cursor.

affaan-m/ECC · 248,541 stars · on GitHub

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/affaan-m/ecc/rust-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC

Or install ecc, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 70 skills, 56 commands, 68 agents, 1 MCP server.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for rust-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/affaan-m/ecc/rust-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/affaan-m/ecc/rust-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/affaan-m/ecc/rust-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/affaan-m/ecc/rust-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 12 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 485 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00012 $0.00485
Opus 5 $0.00006 $0.00243
Sonnet 5 $0.00002 $0.00097
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00049

Measured yesterday against content hash e768b36b24aa, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

rust-review 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 yesterday.

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.

Origin

Copies of this mod

7 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:

.opencode/commands/rust-review.md · 66 lines

What it actually says

Rust Review Command

Review Rust code for idiomatic patterns and best practices: $ARGUMENTS

Your Task

  1. Analyze Rust code for idioms and patterns
  2. Check ownership - borrowing, lifetimes, unnecessary clones
  3. Review error handling - proper ? propagation, no unwrap in production
  4. Verify safety - unsafe usage, injection, secrets

Review Checklist

Safety (CRITICAL)

  • No unchecked unwrap()/expect() in production paths
  • unsafe blocks have // SAFETY: comments
  • No SQL/command injection
  • No hardcoded secrets

Ownership (HIGH)

  • No unnecessary .clone() to satisfy borrow checker
  • &str preferred over String in function parameters
  • &[T] preferred over Vec<T> in function parameters
  • No excessive lifetime annotations where elision works

Error Handling (HIGH)

  • Errors propagated with ?; use .context() in anyhow/eyre application code
  • No silenced errors (let _ = result;)
  • thiserror for library errors, anyhow for applications

Concurrency (HIGH)

  • No blocking in async context
  • Bounded channels preferred
  • Mutex poisoning handled
  • Send/Sync bounds correct

Code Quality (MEDIUM)

  • Functions under 50 lines
  • No deep nesting (>4 levels)
  • Exhaustive matching on business enums
  • Clippy warnings addressed

Report Format

CRITICAL Issues

  • [file:line] Issue description Suggestion: How to fix

HIGH Issues

  • [file:line] Issue description Suggestion: How to fix

MEDIUM Issues

  • [file:line] Issue description Suggestion: How to fix

TIP: Run cargo clippy -- -D warnings and cargo fmt --check for automated checks.

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 66 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A e768b36b24aa

Subscribe to this mod's changes

rust-review is a command published in the GitHub repository affaan-m/ECC (248,541 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 485 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-03.