agentleFS
Sign inStart free
AnthropicKnown publisheranthropics/connect-rust/CLAUDE.md

connect-rust

CLAUDE.md535 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

@CONTRIBUTING.md Before producing a commit, run both review agents in parallel (single message, two Agent tool calls): - rust-code-reviewer — correctness, safety, ownership/lifetimes, performance - rust-api-ergonomics-reviewer — downstream-consumer perspective: happy-path friction, lints that fire in user crates, runtime footguns, doc drift, generated-code readability The two are complementary (different lenses on the same diff) and produce largely non-overlapping findings. Address all Critical, High, and Medium findings from both. For Low / advisory findings, flag these to the user to decide. For…

The file

We split this CLAUDE.md into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before producing a commit, run both review agents in parallel (single message, two Agent tool calls):

    line 7

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 26,980 CLAUDE.md files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
CLAUDE.md

connect-rust — Claude Code Instructions

@CONTRIBUTING.md

Pre-Commit Code Review

Before producing a commit, run both review agents in parallel (single message, two Agent tool calls):

  • rust-code-reviewer — correctness, safety, ownership/lifetimes, performance
  • rust-api-ergonomics-reviewer — downstream-consumer perspective: happy-path friction, lints that fire in user crates, runtime footguns, doc drift, generated-code readability

The two are complementary (different lenses on the same diff) and produce largely non-overlapping findings. Address all Critical, High, and Medium findings from both. For Low / advisory findings, flag these to the user to decide.

For changes that touch only internal/test/bench code with no public-API surface, the ergonomics reviewer may be skipped.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free