qte77/reviewing-rust

Review Context

• Changed files: !git diff --name-only HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || echo "No recent commits"
• Staged files: !git diff --staged --name-only

Code Review

Scope: $ARGUMENTS

Delivers focused, streamlined Rust code reviews matching stated task requirements exactly. No over-analysis.

Rust Standards

See references/rust-best-practices.md for comprehensive Rust guidelines.

Workflow

1. Read task requirements to understand expected scope
2. Check validation passes before detailed review
3. Match review depth to task complexity (simple vs complex)
4. Validate requirements — does implementation match task scope exactly?
5. Issue focused feedback with specific file paths and line numbers

Review Strategy

Simple Tasks (single module): Safety, error handling, requirements match, basic quality

Complex Tasks (multi-module): Above plus architecture, ownership patterns, async correctness, comprehensive testing

Always: Use existing project patterns, check for unsafe blocks

Review Checklist

Safety & Security:

• [ ] No unnecessary unsafe blocks (every block has // SAFETY: comment)
• [ ] No unwrap()/expect() in production paths
• [ ] All external input validated at boundaries
• [ ] cargo audit clean (no known CVEs)

Requirements Match:

• [ ] Implements exactly what was requested
• [ ] No over-engineering or scope creep
• [ ] Appropriate complexity level

Code Quality:

• [ ] Follows project patterns in src/
• [ ] Proper error handling with ? and typed errors
• [ ] Ownership/borrowing patterns correct (no unnecessary clones)
• [ ] Tests cover stated functionality

Structural Health:

• [ ] No function exceeds cognitive complexity threshold
• [ ] No copy-paste duplication across methods
• [ ] pub(crate) used for crate-internal types

Output Standards

Simple Tasks: CRITICAL issues only, clear approval when requirements met Complex Tasks: CRITICAL/WARNINGS/SUGGESTIONS with specific fixes All reviews: Concise, streamlined, no unnecessary complexity analysis