Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/existential-birds/beaglenpx agentmods add skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-code-reviewWrote 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/skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-code-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/skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-code-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 | $0.00059 | $0.05528 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.02211 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.01106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00553 |
Grade A, and why
rust-code-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 290 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Rust Code Review
Review Workflow
Follow this sequence to avoid false positives and catch edition-specific issues:
- Check
Cargo.toml— Note the Rust edition (2018, 2021, 2024) and MSRV if set. Edition 2024 introduces breaking changes to unsafe semantics, RPIT lifetime capture, temporary scoping, and!type fallback. This determines which patterns apply. Check workspace structure if present. - Check dependencies — Note key crates (thiserror vs anyhow, tokio features, serde features). These inform which patterns are expected.
- Scan changed files — Read full functions, not just diffs. Many Rust bugs hide in ownership flow across a function.
- Check each category — Work through the checklist below, loading references as needed.
- Verify before reporting — Complete Gates (below), including the verification-protocol gate, before submitting findings.
Gates
These steps are sequenced: do not skip ahead with “mental verification.” Each step has an objective Pass you can satisfy from files on disk and your own read path.
- Crate context — Before relying on edition-specific checklist rows (Edition 2024, MSRV-sensitive APIs) or dependency assumptions. Pass: You opened the relevant
Cargo.toml(package or workspace manifest) and can stateeditionandrust-version(if set) in one line. - Expanded read — Before reporting a Major or Critical finding. Pass: You read the full function,
unsafeblock, orimpl/ trait item that contains the cited line (not only a diff hunk). - Severity match — Before each finding line in the report. Pass: The Severity label matches Severity Calibration for that issue class, or you use Informational and give a one-line rationale.
- Verification protocol — Before finalizing the report. Pass: the review-verification-protocol skill is loaded and every step in it that applies to this review is completed (do not substitute a vague “I checked”).
What ships with it
13 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- references/async-concurrency.md 18 KB
- references/common-mistakes.md 7.3 KB
- references/concurrency-models.md 12 KB
- references/concurrency-primitives.md 21 KB
- references/error-handling.md 23 KB
- references/interface-design.md 29 KB
- references/lifetime-variance.md 5.3 KB
- references/lock-free-patterns.md 23 KB
- references/memory-ordering.md 22 KB
- references/ownership-borrowing.md 7.5 KB
- references/patterns-in-the-wild.md 17 KB
- references/types-layout.md 14 KB
- references/unsafe-deep.md 20 KB
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 · 290 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 2f65a1070528
rust-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 5,528 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-16.
Other skills, from other repositories
no-bare-casts
Writing as in TypeScript or TSX production code, modifying a file that contains a bare as cast, silencing a type error with a cast, encountering as unknown as, or reviewing a cast site.
splitting-oversized-modules
Split an oversized Python module (a thousand-plus-line logic.py, models.py, api.py, or its test file) into a package of one module per concern, mechanically and provably without changing behavior. Use on a request to split / break up / decompose a god module or move functions out of one, once a human has agreed to…
splitting-oversized-modules
Split an oversized Python module (a thousand-plus-line logic.py, models.py, api.py, or its test file) into a package of one module per concern, mechanically and provably without changing behavior. Use on a request to split / break up / decompose a god module or move functions out of one, once a human has agreed to…
r-tidyverse-style
Use when the user asks to review or clean up R code for tidyverse style, standardize formatting or names, remove redundant comments or wrappers, or make a behavior-preserving style pass. Also use when writing substantial new R package code if the user requests tidyverse style or the package already follows it. Not for…
solid-principles
SOLID principles checklist with Java examples. Use when a class has too many responsibilities, an abstraction leaks, or a dependency points the wrong way, and when the user asks about Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov, Interface Segregation or Dependency Inversion. For naming, duplication and method length…
ring:auditing-dependency-security
Auditing a dependency for supply-chain risk before install (pip/npm/go/cargo): checks typosquatting, maintainer/age risk, vulnerability DBs (OSV, GHSA, Socket), and lockfile hash pinning, then emits a risk score and approve/conditional/escalate/block decision. Use when adding or updating a dependency, reviewing a…