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 mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills --skill rust-review-patternsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skillsWrote 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/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/rust-review-patterns)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/rust-review-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/rust-review-patterns/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/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/rust-review-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/rust-review-patterns.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 | $0.00066 | $0.04044 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.02022 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00809 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00404 |
Grade A, and why
rust-review-patterns 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 9d 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 — 348 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Rust Code Review Patterns
Overview
Rust's ownership model, borrow checker, and zero-cost abstractions create a category of correctness guarantees absent from other systems languages. A reviewer familiar with C++ or Go will miss the failure modes that are unique to Rust: unnecessary clone chains that silently degrade throughput, lifetime annotations that fight the compiler rather than express intent, unsafe blocks that document no invariants, and async code that compiles but deadlocks under real workloads.
This guide focuses on seven areas where Rust code most commonly fails in review or in production: ownership and borrowing discipline, lifetime annotations, unsafe correctness, error handling with Result and Option, async pitfalls around Send and Sync, trait design mistakes, and pervasive anti-patterns like excessive cloning and Arc<Mutex<>> overuse.
Load this skill when reviewing any Rust PR that touches async runtimes, FFI boundaries, public library APIs, or performance-sensitive hot paths. Cross-reference review-accuracy-calibration before posting: Rust's compiler rejects most memory safety bugs, but logic errors in unsafe blocks, async cancellation, and error propagation escape static analysis.
Quick Reference
| Review Dimension | Severity | Primary Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Unnecessary clone | MEDIUM–HIGH | .clone() on large heap types inside a loop or hot path |
| Fighting the borrow checker | MEDIUM | Re-structuring logic rather than redesigning the data model |
| Move semantics misuse | HIGH | Using a value after move; surprising copies of non-Copy types |
| Lifetime over-annotation | MEDIUM | 'a on every signature when elision would be correct |
'static abuse |
HIGH | T: 'static bound used to avoid reasoning about lifetimes |
| Unjustified unsafe | CRITICAL | unsafe block with no safety comment documenting invariants |
unwrap() in production |
HIGH | .unwrap() or .expect() in non-test, non-prototype code |
Missing ? propagation |
MEDIUM | Manual match on Result when ? suffices |
| Blocking in async | HIGH | std::thread::sleep, std::fs, or heavy CPU work inside async fn |
Missing Send bound |
HIGH | tokio::spawn with a future that holds a !Send type |
| Trait object over generics | MEDIUM | dyn Trait in a hot path where monomorphization is feasible |
| Blanket impl conflict | HIGH | Blanket impl<T> that may overlap with future upstream impls |
Arc<Mutex<>> everywhere |
MEDIUM | Shared mutable state wrapped per-field rather than modeled differently |
| Ignoring clippy | LOW–MEDIUM | PR touches existing clippy warnings without resolving them |
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 348 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 911023ccbe8f
rust-review-patterns is a skill published in the GitHub repository mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 4,044 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
architecture-audit
Systematic architecture audit and refactoring methodology for Rust + TypeScript codebases. Use when performing refactoring, cleanup, unification, code review, dead code removal, module reorganization, or tech debt elimination. Ensures no naming confusion, semantic overloading, hidden defaults, duplicate logic, or…
rust-review
A Rust code-review skill for services, checking for crashes, unsafe SQL construction, exposed credentials, ignored errors, and unfinished code.
rust-skills
Comprehensive Rust coding guidelines with 265 rules across 26 categories. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring Rust code. Covers ownership, error handling, async patterns, concurrency, unsafe code, API design, memory optimization, performance, numeric safety, conversions, serde, pattern matching, macros…
writing-rust
Idiomatic Rust development. Use when writing Rust code, Cargo crates/workspaces, Rust tests, or rustfmt/clippy/cargo workflows. Emphasizes ownership, Result errors, small APIs, stdlib-first dependencies, fast cargo feedback, and behavior tests. NOT for Go, Python, TypeScript, shell scripts, or infra-only work.
adversarial-rust
Use this skill when reviewing or refactoring existing Rust code that carries an alien mental model — OO/enterprise ceremony from Java/C#, garbage-collected object graphs, exception-style control flow, or imperative loops ported onto the borrow checker. It is the adversarial, architecture-level counterpart to…
m15-anti-pattern
Use when reviewing code for anti-patterns. Keywords: anti-pattern, common mistake, pitfall, code smell, bad practice, code review, is this an anti-pattern, better way to do this, common mistake to avoid, why is this bad, idiomatic way, beginner mistake, fighting borrow checker, clone everywhere, unwrap in production…