SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsaxum-agents-api-review

axum-agents-api-review

Coding & development

View repository

Updated 10-16 08:50

About this skill

Axum API Review

Overview

axum-agents-api-review is an orchestration skill. The other 28 skills in this package teach how to WRITE correct Axum code. This skill teaches how to AUDIT existing Axum code against that combined knowledge.

The agent reads a codebase, a diff, or a single file, runs the 10-category checklist, classifies each finding by severity, and emits structured findings. Every finding names the exact skill that owns the corrective guidance.

Two rules define this skill:

  1. This skill DETECTS and DELEGATES. It NEVER teaches the fix inline. Each finding cites the owning skill (for example axum-impl-database); the user reads that skill for the fix. Keeping fix knowledge in the owning skill is what keeps this skill short and prevents drift.
  2. This skill introduces NO new Axum API claims. Every check traces to a verified anti-pattern already owned by another skill.

Quick Reference

Severity model

The agent MUST assign exactly one severity per finding.

Severity Definition Example
blocker Will not compile, panics at startup or runtime, or a confirmed security hole. Ship-stopping. 0.7 path syntax on 0.8, body extractor not last, hardcoded JWT secret, .unwrap() on external input
warning Compiles and runs, but has a latent correctness, reliability, or operational defect that WILL bite under load or in production. Blocking call in an async handler, new DB pool per request, missing graceful shutdown, CorsLayer::permissive() in production
suggestion Works correctly, but diverges from a package best practice. Extension where State would be compile-checked, coarse roles instead of permission checks, missing acquire_timeout

ALWAYS round up when uncertain between two levels. A false blocker costs a review comment; a missed blocker costs an outage.

Review process

  1. Determine the target Axum version (0.7 or 0.8) from Cargo.toml. If unknown, report it as unknown and flag version-sensitive checks.
  2. Run all 10 checklist categories (Pattern 1) against the code.
  3. Assign exactly one severity per finding (Pattern 2).
  4. Map the finding to one of the 16 anti-patterns where it fits (Pattern 3).
  5. Emit the summary header, then ordered structured findings (Pattern 4).

Output format

Summary header first, then one block per finding:

Axum API Review : <N> findings
  blockers : <b>   warnings : <w>   suggestions : <s>
  Target Axum version : <0.7 | 0.8 | unknown>

[<SEVERITY>] <short title>
  Location : <file>:<line> (or "design-level")
  Symptom  : <observable behavior that goes wrong>
  Anti-pattern : AP-<n> (omit if it maps to no AP)
  Fix skill : axum-<category>-<topic>
  Action   : <one-line corrective direction; the fix skill has the detail>

Decision Trees

Assigning severity

Classify the finding.
|
+- Does the code fail to compile, panic at startup or runtime, or have a
|  confirmed security hole?
|  `- YES: blocker.
|
+- Does it compile and run, but carry a latent defect that fails under load
|  or in production?
|  `- YES: warning.
|
+- Does it work correctly and only diverge from a best practice?
|  `- YES: suggestion.
|
`- Uncertain between two levels?
   `- Choose the HIGHER severity. Never invent a level outside
      {blocker, warning, suggestion}.

Should this be a finding at all?

Considering reporting something.
|
+- Does it tie to a specific check in one of the 10 categories, or to one
|  of the 16 anti-patterns?
|  `- YES: report it, cite the check category or the AP number.
|
`- NO: it ties to no check.
   `- NEVER report it. This skill only reports checklist-anchored findings.
      A finding with no owning check and no AP number is out of scope.

Empty review result

Finished the checklist, found nothing.
|
`- ALWAYS still emit the summary header with all counts at 0 and an explicit
   "No issues found" line. An empty result is never silent or ambiguous.

Patterns

Pattern 1: Run the 10-category checklist

Run every category. Each category lists its headline checks and the skills that own the fix. The complete per-check tables (what to look for, failure symptom, owning skill) are in references/methods.md.

  1. Routing: path syntax matches the target version ({id} on 0.8, :id on 0.7); routes registered before .layer(); 405 distinguished from 404; no double-fallback panic after .merge(). Owners: axum-core-router, axum-core-version-migration, axum-impl-middleware.

  2. Extractors: a body extractor (Json, Form, Multipart, Bytes, String, Request) is the LAST argument; at most one body extractor per handler; Option<Path<T>> treated with 0.8 semantics; custom extractors use the right base trait and a Rejection that implements IntoResponse. Owners: axum-syntax-extractors, axum-syntax-custom-extractors, axum-core-version-migration, axum-errors-extractor-rejections, axum-errors-handler-trait.

  3. Handlers: the return type is IntoResponse; the function is async; the future is Send (no Rc, RefCell, std::sync::MutexGuard across .await); at most 16 extractor arguments. Owners: axum-syntax-handlers, axum-errors-handler-trait, axum-core-async-performance.

  4. Middleware: layer ordering is intentional (stacked Router::layer() is bottom-to-top); ServiceBuilder is top-to-bottom, the opposite direction; auth middleware uses .route_layer() not .layer(); from_fn argument order is correct (Next last). Owners: axum-impl-middleware, axum-impl-tower-stack, axum-impl-authorization.

  5. State: State is preferred over Extension for application data; state is Clone and cheap to clone; FromRef is used for substate composition; interior mutability uses tokio::sync::Mutex, never std::sync::Mutex across .await. Owners: axum-core-state, axum-core-async-performance.

  6. Errors: no .unwrap() or .expect() on fallible values in handlers; a typed AppError with IntoResponse exists; From impls wire the ? operator; extractor rejections are customized where the default leaks internal detail; fallible tower::Service middleware is adapted with HandleError. Owners: axum-errors-handling, axum-errors-extractor-rejections.

  7. Auth: JWT and session secrets are read from the environment, never a literal; Claims mandates an exp field; auth is enforced through a FromRequestParts extractor; authorization is permission-based, not coarse-role string comparison; CORS uses an explicit allowlist in production, never CorsLayer::permissive(); session auth uses an established crate. Owners: axum-impl-auth-jwt, axum-impl-auth-session, axum-impl-authorization, axum-impl-tower-stack, axum-syntax-custom-extractors.

  8. Database: exactly one pool, built in main; the pool is shared via with_state with no extra Arc; acquire_timeout is set; max_connections is sized against the database server limit; transactions rely on drop-rollback or an explicit commit. Owners: axum-impl-database, axum-core-state, axum-core-async-performance.

  9. Performance: no blocking or CPU-bound work in an async handler; blocking work uses spawn_blocking; WebSocket and SSE tasks never block; DefaultBodyLimit is raised for large uploads but a hard ceiling remains. Owners: axum-core-async-performance, axum-impl-websockets, axum-impl-sse, axum-impl-file-upload.

  10. Deployment: graceful shutdown is wired; the shutdown signal covers SIGTERM, not only ctrl_c(); the pool is closed and tracing flushed on shutdown; the service binds 0.0.0.0 in a container; config comes from environment variables; no tracing span guard is held across .await. Owners: axum-impl-deployment, axum-impl-tracing, axum-impl-database, axum-core-async-performance.

Pattern 2: Assign exactly one severity

Apply the severity decision tree to every finding. Compilation failures and startup panics (0.7 syntax on 0.8, body extractor not last, non-IntoResponse return, !Send future) are blockers. Confirmed security holes (hardcoded secret) are blockers. .unwrap() in a handler is a blocker, because it converts a recoverable error into a crashed request task. Operational defects that survive compilation are warnings. Pure best-practice divergences are suggestions. NEVER emit a severity outside {blocker, warning, suggestion}.

Pattern 3: Map to the 16 anti-patterns

Where a finding matches a known anti-pattern, cite its AP-<n> number. The full table is in references/methods.md. Headline mapping:

AP Anti-pattern Severity
AP-1 Body extractor not last blocker
AP-2 0.7 path syntax on 0.8 (startup panic) blocker
AP-3 Non-IntoResponse handler return blocker
AP-4 !Send value held across .await blocker
AP-13 .unwrap() or .expect() in a handler blocker
AP-15 Hardcoded JWT or DB secret blocker
AP-6 Assuming Option<Path<T>> swallows errors warning
AP-7 .layer() before routes registered warning
AP-8 ServiceBuilder vs .layer() ordering warning
AP-9 CorsLayer::permissive() in production warning
AP-10 Blocking or CPU work in an async handler or WS task warning
AP-11 DefaultBodyLimit silently blocking uploads warning
AP-12 New DB pool per request warning
AP-14 Missing graceful shutdown warning
AP-5 State vs Extension confusion suggestion
AP-16 tracing span guard across .await suggestion

A finding that ties to a checklist category but not to a numbered anti-pattern omits the Anti-pattern line; it still cites a Fix skill.

Pattern 4: Emit ordered, structured findings

Emit the summary header first, then the finding blocks. Findings MUST be ordered: all blockers, then all warnings, then all suggestions. Within a severity, order by file then by line. A review with zero findings MUST still emit the header with all counts at 0 and an explicit No issues found line. A full worked review (input code plus the exact output) is in references/examples.md.

Pattern 5: Delegate the fix, never teach it inline

Each finding's Action line is ONE corrective sentence plus the Fix skill name. NEVER paste the corrected code or the full explanation into a finding: that duplicates the owning skill and drifts from it over time. The owning skill is the single source of the fix. The reviewer's job is detection, classification, and routing.

Cross-Reference Map: all 28 skills

Every other skill in the package, and the checklist categories that route to it. Skills with no dedicated check are still audit-relevant context.

Skill Checklist categories
axum-core-architecture context only (see axum-agents-scaffold)
axum-core-router 1 Routing
axum-core-state 5 State, 8 Database
axum-core-async-performance 3 Handlers, 5 State, 6 Errors, 8 Database, 9 Performance, 10 Deployment
axum-core-version-migration 1 Routing, 2 Extractors
axum-syntax-extractors 2 Extractors, 3 Handlers
axum-syntax-custom-extractors 2 Extractors, 7 Auth
axum-syntax-handlers 3 Handlers
axum-syntax-responses covered via 6 Errors
axum-impl-middleware 1 Routing, 4 Middleware
axum-impl-tower-stack 4 Middleware, 7 Auth
axum-impl-static-files context only (low audit risk)
axum-impl-websockets 9 Performance
axum-impl-sse 9 Performance
axum-impl-file-upload 9 Performance
axum-impl-auth-jwt 7 Auth
axum-impl-auth-session 7 Auth
axum-impl-authorization 4 Middleware, 7 Auth
axum-impl-database 8 Database
axum-impl-validation covered via 2 Extractors
axum-impl-testing context only (review audits code, not tests)
axum-impl-tracing 10 Deployment
axum-impl-openapi context only
axum-impl-deployment 10 Deployment
axum-errors-handling 6 Errors
axum-errors-extractor-rejections 2 Extractors, 6 Errors
axum-errors-handler-trait 2 Extractors, 3 Handlers
axum-agents-scaffold the build-side counterpart of this skill

Reference Links

  • references/methods.md: the complete 10-category checklist with one row per check (what to look for, failure symptom, owning skill), and the full 16-anti-pattern table with severity and owning skill.
  • references/examples.md: a full worked review, an input Axum file with multiple defects and the exact structured-findings output, plus an empty No issues found review.
  • references/anti-patterns.md: mistakes the REVIEWER agent makes (teaching the fix inline, inventing a severity, skipping the summary header, unordered findings, reporting an unanchored finding) and why each fails.

Related skills: axum-agents-scaffold (the build-side counterpart that orchestrates writing a new Axum service). Every finding routes to one of the 27 implementation and reference skills listed in the cross-reference map.

Sources: this skill introduces no new API claims. It synthesizes docs/research/vooronderzoek-axum.md section 9 (the 16 verified anti-patterns) and the masterplan Skill Inventory (the 28 cross-reference target names).