rust-review

rust-review is a command for Claude Code, OpenCode from mturac/everything-openai-codex. It costs 12 tokens per session (492 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of rust-review, MIT.

A Rust code-review command focused on Rust's ownership and borrowing rules, error handling, concurrency, safety, and idiomatic style.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review Rust files for ownership, lifetimes, function parameter types, error propagation, unsafe blocks, concurrency bounds, and production safety.
Why use it?
It catches Rust-specific risks such as unnecessary cloning, unchecked errors, unsafe code without explanation, blocking asynchronous code, and injection or secret problems.

Command for Claude CodeOpenCode

Written for Claude Code and OpenCode: $ARGUMENTS substitution, but also installed under .opencode/. Also seen: agent in frontmatter; mentions Codex.

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/mturac/everything-openai-codex/rust-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mturac/everything-openai-codex

Made for: Claude Code, OpenCode.

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/mturac/everything-openai-codex/rust-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/mturac/everything-openai-codex/rust-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mturac/everything-openai-codex/rust-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mturac/everything-openai-codex/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 492 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 91% copy Near-identical to another mod 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 5.1 $0.00012 $0.00492
Opus 5 $0.00006 $0.00246
Sonnet 5 $0.00002 $0.00098
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00049

Measured 2d ago against content hash b04ea6dbbc6c, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-06, 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 2d 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.

Origin

This is a copy

91% identical to rust-review — 2 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.

.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. 2d ago First seen · 66 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A b04ea6dbbc6c

Subscribe to this mod's changes

rust-review is a command published in the GitHub repository mturac/everything-openai-codex (89 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 492 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to rust-review, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.