Skip to content
Back to skills

Review

ASecurity

Review Rust module boundaries and implicit coupling using cargo-coupling findings and source evidence.

  • 109 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 12, 2026
devopsrustgobash

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 23, 2026

npx -y skills add nwiizo/cargo-coupling --skill review --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Review?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Review
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/nwiizo-review/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/nwiizo-review)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: review
description: Review Rust module boundaries and implicit coupling using cargo-coupling findings and source evidence.
argument-hint: "[path]"
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash
---

# Modularity Review

Review the requested scope (default `./src`) for changes that would force unrelated
modules to change together. Reuse a current report or obtain one:

```bash
rtk proxy cargo run -- coupling --ai ./src
```

Read the target's `.coupling.toml` and the source behind consequential findings.
Use [the balance model](../balanced-coupling/SKILL.md) for interpretation. Missing
subdomain configuration is uncertainty to explain, not a reason to block a review
or invent business classifications.

Focus semantic inspection on knowledge shared across boundaries: duplicated rules,
shared constants or ordering assumptions, and co-changing files without an AST
edge. Separate code evidence from assumptions about teams, deployments, or runtime
behavior that static analysis cannot establish. Check the analysis manifest before
calling a report clean.

Prioritize supported findings by change impact and essential volatility. Preserve
expected entrypoint fan-out, stable hubs, and re-export facades. Keep configuration
and history comparable; grade improvement alone is not evidence of better design.

Report findings with file locations, shared knowledge, likely impact, and a
specific recommendation. Include sound design choices and relevant blind spots;
omit empty sections. Use history or baseline analysis only when trend or PR context
matters. The review is complete when its findings and limits are supported;
implementation is a separate user-requested action.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…