rust-development
Skill131 starsChanged 5 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Implement, review, and refactor Rust code with explicit ownership, usable public APIs, and verification of the relevant features and targets. Use for Rust code changes and Rust-specific compiler or Clippy diagnostics.
10 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- salasebas/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ai-agent-assembly/agent-assemblytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- cosmonic-labs/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 12, 2026
- tstapler/dotfilestheir own version, first seen Oct 10, 2026
- sammcj/agentic-codingtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- navikt/copilottheir own version, first seen Sep 14, 2026
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- sammcj/agentic-coding★ 169same name
- navikt/copilot★ 61same name
- cosmonic-labs/skills★ 21same name
- tstapler/dotfiles★ 8same name
- thrashr888/thrashr888-agent-kit★ 5same name
- ai-agent-assembly/agent-assembly★ 4same name
- carloss765/agent-skills★ 1same name
- fatihaydin9/rust-development-skill★ 1same name
- feamcor/skills★ 1same name
- salasebas/skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository3 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .agents/workflow/rust/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- rake-gpuiSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Follow the task's scope and the project's own conventions, supported toolchain, and target matrix.
- Distinctive: line 14
Read the owning module, its callers and exports, Cargo features, target-specific dependencies, and relevant tests.
- Very specific: line 37
Use Result for expected failure and Option for absence.
- Distinctive: line 39
Check contracts for empty, degenerate, and non-finite values when relevant.
- Distinctive: line 40
Document existing clamping/approximation rather than silently changing it during a structural cleanup.
- Distinctive: line 44
Keep traits tied to a real capability boundary or generic algorithm.
- Distinctive: line 46
Keep unsafe operations small and validate the stated safety argument against actual callers, aliasing, initialization, and lifetime.
- Distinctive: line 48
Verify task ownership, cancellation, and completion when async work or a worker is spawned.
- Very specific: line 53
Run focused tests and the project's formatting/Clippy checks.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Rust development
Follow the task's scope and the project's own conventions, supported toolchain, and target matrix. Use this skill for Rust-specific decisions; preserve established architecture during focused fixes.
Find the actual boundary
Read the owning module, its callers and exports, Cargo features, target-specific dependencies, and relevant tests. Determine whether the changed code is portable domain logic, an application operation, or a runtime/platform adapter.
For each important value, identify who owns it, who borrows it, who may mutate it, and what ends its lifetime. For derived values, identify the source and invalidation rule. This is particularly useful when a change appears to require a global context, many clones, or pervasive shared mutable state.
Choose the relevant procedure
- For borrow-checker errors, cloning, shared state, or async lifetimes, read ownership.md. Fix the ownership relationship before widening lifetimes or wrapping data in synchronization primitives.
- For moving modules, splitting a large owner, or changing exports, read refactoring.md. Preserve behavior and test the public boundary while changing structure.
- For a local behavior change, identify its input/output/error contract and test the changed behavior through the existing owner. Do not reorganize the project solely to use this skill.
Rust-specific review
- Use
Resultfor expected failure andOptionfor absence. Check error context, cause preservation, and whether consumers can import and match public error types. - Check contracts for empty, degenerate, and non-finite values when relevant. Document existing clamping/approximation rather than silently changing it during a structural cleanup.
- Inspect what
Clonecopies. Shared handles, copy-on-write values, and deep copies require different decisions; do not mechanically replace every clone with a borrow. - Keep traits tied to a real capability boundary or generic algorithm. Consider concrete types and enums before adding dispatch or a parallel abstraction layer.
- Keep unsafe operations small and validate the stated safety argument against actual callers, aliasing, initialization, and lifetime. A comment alone is not proof.
- Verify task ownership, cancellation, and completion when async work or a worker is spawned. A dropped future or handle may leave external/blocking work running.
Verify the supported use
Run focused tests and the project's formatting/Clippy checks. For exported APIs,
include an external consumer or doctest that uses public paths. Check changed
feature/platform branches explicitly; --all-targets is not all platforms.
Preserve the minimum supported Rust version and avoid suggestions that require a newer language/library feature unless upgrading is part of the request. Use compiler and installed dependency documentation to resolve uncertain APIs. Measure relevant performance before and after changing allocation, caching, or hot algorithms.
Report the resulting ownership/API change, checks run, and any unverified target or prerequisite. Do not claim GPU, browser, native-library, or service behavior from a compile check or an in-memory substitute.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

