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 skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill rust-testing-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/existential-birds/beagleWrote 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-testing-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-testing-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-testing-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-testing-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/rust-testing-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 | $0.00044 | $0.03465 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01386 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00693 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00347 |
Grade A, and why
rust-testing-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 — 203 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Rust Testing Code Review
Review Workflow
- Check Rust edition — Note edition in
Cargo.toml(2021 vs 2024). Edition 2024 changes temporary scoping inif letand tail expressions, and makes#[expect]the preferred lint suppression - Check test organization — Unit tests in
#[cfg(test)]modules, integration tests intests/directory - Check async test setup —
#[tokio::test]for async tests, proper runtime configuration. Check forasync-traiton mocks that could use nativeasync fnin traits - Check assertions — Meaningful messages, correct assertion type. Review
if letassertions for edition 2024 temporary scope changes - Check test isolation — No shared mutable state between tests, proper setup/teardown. Prefer
LazyLockoverlazy_static!/once_cellfor shared fixtures - Check coverage patterns — Error paths tested, edge cases covered
Gates (hard)
Do not advance to Output Format until each pass condition is satisfied (yes/no with a concrete artifact).
- Edition recorded — Open the target crate’s
Cargo.toml(or workspace[workspace.package]/ inherited edition) and note theeditionvalue. Pass: you can quoteedition = "…"(or document “inherited from workspace”) before citing Rust 2024–specific behavior (if let/ tail temporary drops,#[expect]vs#[allow]migration, nativeasync fnin traits as default). If edition is not2024, do not report those items as edition-2024 regressions; at most Informational if still useful. dynvs static async mocks — Before suggesting nativeasync fnin traits instead ofasync-trait, check whether the mock is used asdyn Trait. Pass: ifdynis required, you either skip that suggestion or align with Valid Patterns (async-traitstill needed).- Verification protocol — Pass: steps from the review-verification-protocol skill are done before any finding is listed (see Before Submitting Findings).
What ships with it
4 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.
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 · 203 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 1256261a3efa
rust-testing-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 44 tokens to every session and 3,465 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
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade curated individual tests for readiness, A-F quality and improvements. ALWAYS USE FOR: grade tests, review only a named test, per-test readiness or quality bands for supplied methods, bodies, file spans or bounded PR diffs, including existing tests. Return Pass/Failed/Uncertain/Not applicable; unresolved/empty…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
dart-mechanical-refactor
DART Mechanical Refactor: perform a behavior-preserving mechanical refactor.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.