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/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notesWrote 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/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/rust-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/rust-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/rust-review/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/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/rust-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/rust-review.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00485 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00243 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00049 |
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 10d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to rust-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Rust Review Command
Review Rust code for idiomatic patterns and best practices: $ARGUMENTS
Your Task
- Analyze Rust code for idioms and patterns
- Check ownership - borrowing, lifetimes, unnecessary clones
- Review error handling - proper
?propagation, no unwrap in production - Verify safety - unsafe usage, injection, secrets
Review Checklist
Safety (CRITICAL)
- No unchecked
unwrap()/expect()in production paths -
unsafeblocks have// SAFETY:comments - No SQL/command injection
- No hardcoded secrets
Ownership (HIGH)
- No unnecessary
.clone()to satisfy borrow checker -
&strpreferred overStringin function parameters -
&[T]preferred overVec<T>in function parameters - No excessive lifetime annotations where elision works
Error Handling (HIGH)
- Errors propagated with
?; use.context()inanyhow/eyreapplication code - No silenced errors (
let _ = result;) -
thiserrorfor library errors,anyhowfor applications
Concurrency (HIGH)
- No blocking in async context
- Bounded channels preferred
-
Mutexpoisoning handled -
Send/Syncbounds 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.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 66 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A e768b36b24aa
rust-review is a command published in the GitHub repository loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes (270 stars, last pushed 6d ago), 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. It is 100% identical to rust-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
rust-critique
Deep code critique — read the target Rust code and apply the full review process. Evaluates soundness, ownership, error handling, type design, async correctness, performance, and architecture. Think like a senior Rust engineer giving honest feedback.
rust-harden
Harden Rust code — replace unwrap with proper error handling, add safety comments to unsafe blocks, enable overflow checks, validate inputs at boundaries. The defensive hardening pass.
rust-teach
One-time setup that scans your Rust project, understands its patterns and conventions, and writes a Rust-specific context section to your CLAUDE.md. Run once per project to establish persistent Rust guidelines.
rust-types
Strengthen the type system — replace primitive obsession with newtypes, booleans with enums, stringly-typed APIs with domain types. Make illegal states unrepresentable.
rust-polish
Final pre-merge polish — remove dead code, verify doc comments, clean clippy, check all Result paths, remove debug artifacts. The last 5% that takes 50% of the effort.
rust-review
Comprehensive Rust code review for ownership, lifetimes, error handling, unsafe usage, and idiomatic patterns. Invokes the rust-reviewer agent.