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.
npx agentmods add commands/tpavanipradeep/everything-claude-code/rust-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tpavanipradeep/everything-claude-codeWhat 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 | $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 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.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 66 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A e768b36b24aa
rust-review is a command published in the GitHub repository tpavanipradeep/everything-claude-code (104 stars, last pushed 5mo 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
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.