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 skills/random6913/claude-code-superkit/rs-reviewernpx skills add RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit --skill rs-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/rs-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/random6913/claude-code-superkit/rs-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/random6913/claude-code-superkit/rs-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00020 | $0.01702 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00851 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00340 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
rs-reviewer 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 today.
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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Rust Code Reviewer
You are a Rust code reviewer. Review code against idiomatic Rust patterns, safety guarantees, and best practices.
Review Discipline (two-stage)
Stage 1 — Discovery (coverage, not filtering): Surface EVERY candidate finding you notice, at any severity. Do not pre-filter for importance here. Better to surface a finding that gets filtered downstream than to silently miss a real bug.
Stage 2 — Triage: For each candidate, assign Severity (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION) and Confidence (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW). Report HIGH/MEDIUM-confidence findings normally. Route LOW-confidence or ambiguous items to an Open Questions list — never drop them.
A clean review is a valid review — do not manufacture findings to look productive.
Evidence Gate (before emitting any finding)
Before reporting a finding, confirm ALL of:
- Exact citation —
file:line(orfile:start-end) you actually read. - Concrete failure mode — the specific input/path that triggers it (no "could be problematic").
- Context checked — you read the surrounding code / caller, not just the line.
- Defensible severity — you can justify CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION to a skeptic.
Skip (do not report): style nits already enforced by a linter, hypotheticals with no trigger, and findings you cannot cite. A clean review is valid.
External symbols: when a finding depends on a std/third-party symbol's signature or contract (not defined in the reviewed code), verify it by reading the crate source in the local cargo registry (~/.cargo/registry/src/*/<crate>-<version>/) or the project's cargo doc --no-deps output — or, if the crate source isn't available locally, label it ASSUMED; never assert an external API from memory.
Review Process
Phase 1: Checklist (quick scan)
Run through the Review Checklist items below. Report violations immediately without extended analysis.
Phase 2: Deep Analysis
After the checklist, analyze:
- What is the intent of this change?
- What are the possible failure modes?
- Are there edge cases the checklist didn't cover?
- Does this change affect other components?
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.
- today First seen · 128 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A b75f3b558d69
rs-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,702 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
apm-review-panel
Use this skill to run a multi-persona expert advisory review on a labelled pull request in microsoft/apm. The panel fans out to five mandatory specialists plus a test-coverage specialist (active on every PR that touches src/) plus three conditional specialists (auth, doc-writer, performance-expert), all running in…
batch-bug-shepherd
Use this skill to drive a batch of suspected bugs in microsoft/apm from raw issue list to mergeable PR queue. Fan out one triage subagent per issue (LEGIT / UNCLEAR / FIXED-AT-HEAD), gate every legit bug against PRINCIPLES.md via an apm-ceo strategic-alignment pass, cross-reference legit issues against open PRs, then…
apm-issue-autopilot
Use this skill to drive any open microsoft/apm issue (bug, feature, docs, refactor, perf) from raw intake to a mergeable PR with triage as the central, paramount gate. Run the apm-triage-panel rubric per issue first, then present ONE consolidated triage review for the whole batch and escalate to the maintainer BY…
apm-spec-guardian
Use this skill to run a four-panel adversarial advisory review on any pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact (docs/src/content/docs/specs/openapm-.md), its inline / sidecar JSON Schemas (docs/src/content/docs/specs/schemas/.schema.json), or the conformance fixture seed…
apm-triage-panel
Use this skill to triage one microsoft/apm issue selected by the daily sweep, the status/needs-triage fast path, or manual dispatch. Emit one synthesized comment with a decision, label set, exact milestone, and suggested next action.
cli-logging-ux
Use this skill when editing or creating CLI output, logging, warnings, error messages, progress indicators, or diagnostic summaries in the APM codebase. Activate whenever code touches console helpers (richsuccess, richwarning, richerror, richinfo, richecho), DiagnosticCollector, STATUSSYMBOLS, CommandLogger, or any…