review-rust

Rust Code Review

Arguments

• --parallel: Spawn specialized subagents per technology area
• Path: Target directory (default: current working directory)

Step 1: Identify Changed Files

git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '\.rs$'

Step 2: Check Rust Edition and MSRV

# Check Cargo.toml for edition and rust-version
grep -E 'edition|rust-version' Cargo.toml

# Check workspace members if workspace
grep -A 20 '\[workspace\]' Cargo.toml

Step 3: Verify Linter Status

CRITICAL: Run clippy and check BEFORE flagging style or correctness issues. Do NOT flag issues that clippy or the compiler already catches.

cargo clippy --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings 2>&1 | head -50
cargo clippy -- -D clippy::perf 2>&1 | head -20
cargo check --all-targets 2>&1 | head -50

Step 4: Detect Technologies

# Detect tokio async runtime
grep -r "tokio" --include="Cargo.toml" -l | head -3

# Detect axum web framework
grep -r "axum" --include="Cargo.toml" -l | head -3

# Detect sqlx database
grep -r "sqlx" --include="Cargo.toml" -l | head -3

# Detect serde serialization
grep -r "serde" --include="Cargo.toml" -l | head -3

# Detect thiserror / anyhow
grep -r "thiserror\|anyhow" --include="Cargo.toml" -l | head -3

# Detect tracing
grep -r "tracing" --include="Cargo.toml" -l | head -3

# Check for test files in diff
git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '((^|/)(test|tests)/.*\.rs$)|(_test\.rs$)'

# Check for unsafe code in diff
git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD -- '*.rs' | grep -c 'unsafe'

Step 5: Load Verification Protocol

Load beagle-rust:review-verification-protocol skill and keep its checklist in mind throughout the review.

Step 6: Load Skills

Use the Skill tool to load each applicable skill (e.g., Skill(skill: "beagle-rust:rust-code-review")).

Always load:

• beagle-rust:rust-code-review

Conditionally load based on detection:

Condition	Skill
Tokio detected	beagle-rust:tokio-async-code-review
Axum detected	beagle-rust:axum-code-review
sqlx detected	beagle-rust:sqlx-code-review
Serde detected	beagle-rust:serde-code-review
Test files changed	beagle-rust:rust-testing-code-review

Step 7: Review

Sequential (default):

1. Load applicable skills
2. Review core Rust quality (ownership, error handling, unsafe, traits)
3. Review detected technology areas
4. Consolidate findings

Parallel (--parallel flag):

1. Detect all technologies upfront
2. Spawn one subagent per technology area with Task tool
3. Each agent loads its skill and reviews its domain
4. Wait for all agents
5. Consolidate findings

Step 8: Verify Findings

Before reporting any issue:

1. Re-read the actual code (not just diff context)
2. For "unused" claims - did you search all references across the workspace?
3. For "missing" claims - did you check trait definitions, derive macros, and #[cfg] gated code?
4. For "unnecessary clone" - did you verify the borrow checker allows a reference?
5. For "unsafe" issues - did you check the safety comments and surrounding invariants?
6. Remove any findings that are style preferences, not actual issues

Step 9: Review Convergence

Single-Pass Completeness

You MUST report ALL issues across ALL categories (ownership, error handling, async, types, tests, security, performance) in a single review pass. Do not hold back issues for later rounds.

Before submitting findings, ask yourself:

• "If all my recommended fixes are applied, will I find NEW issues in the fixed code?"
• "Am I requesting new code (tests, types, modules) that will itself need review?"

If yes to either: include those anticipated downstream issues NOW, in this review, so the author can address everything at once.

Scope Rules

• Review ONLY the code in the diff and directly related existing code
• Do NOT request new features, test infrastructure, or architectural changes that didn't exist before the diff
• If test coverage is missing, flag it as ONE Minor issue ("Missing test coverage for X, Y, Z") — do NOT specify implementation details
• Doc comments, naming issues are Minor unless they affect public API contracts
• Do NOT request adding new dependencies (e.g., proptest, mockall, criterion)

Fix Complexity Budget

Fixes to existing code should be flagged at their real severity regardless of size.

However, requests for net-new code that didn't exist before the diff must be classified as Informational:

• Adding a new dependency
• Creating entirely new modules, files, or test suites
• Extracting new traits or abstractions
• Adding benchmark suites

These are improvement suggestions for the author to consider in future work, not review blockers.

Iteration Policy

If this is a re-review after fixes were applied:

• ONLY verify that previously flagged issues were addressed correctly
• Do NOT introduce new findings unrelated to the previous review's issues
• Accept Minor/Nice-to-Have issues that weren't fixed — do not re-flag them
• The goal of re-review is VERIFICATION, not discovery

Output Format

## Review Summary

[1-2 sentence overview of findings]

## Issues

### Critical (Blocking)

1. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: Description of what's wrong
   - Why: Why this matters (unsound unsafe, data race, panic, security)
   - Fix: Specific recommended fix

### Major (Should Fix)

2. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: ...
   - Why: ...
   - Fix: ...

### Minor (Nice to Have)

N. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: ...
   - Why: ...
   - Fix: ...

### Informational (For Awareness)

N. [FILE:LINE] SUGGESTION_TITLE
   - Suggestion: ...
   - Rationale: ...

## Good Patterns

- [FILE:LINE] Pattern description (preserve this)

## Verdict

Ready: Yes | No | With fixes 1-N (Critical/Major only; Minor items are acceptable)
Rationale: [1-2 sentences]

Rules

• Load skills BEFORE reviewing (not after)
• Number every issue sequentially (1, 2, 3...)
• Include FILE:LINE for each issue
• Separate Issue/Why/Fix clearly
• Categorize by actual severity
• Run clippy before flagging style issues
• Run verification after fixes
• Report ALL issues in a single pass — do not hold back findings for later iterations
• Re-reviews verify previous fixes ONLY — no new discovery
• Requests for net-new code (new modules, dependencies, test suites) are Informational, not blocking
• The Verdict ignores Minor and Informational items — only Critical and Major block approval

Post-Fix Verification

After fixes are applied, run:

cargo check --all-targets
cargo clippy --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings
cargo test --all-targets

All checks must pass before approval.