Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

rust-ownership(Rust ownership 命令行)

rust-ownership 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

rust-ownership 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 19,805。

总安装 256周安装 11GitHub Stars 29下载 90核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:rust-ownership(Rust ownership 命令行)
来源仓库:https://github.com/huiali/rust-skills
仓库路径:skills/rust-ownership
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/huiali/rust-skills --skill rust-ownership
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/huiali/rust-skills --skill rust-ownership

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

Rust ownership 命令行工具用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息。适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理的任务。

通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需结合原始 README 核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。该技能适合在 Rust 所有权机制相关的开发协作场景中使用。

来源仓库内路径:skills/rust-ownership

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/huiali/rust-skills --skill rust-ownership;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

rust-ownership 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/huiali/rust-skills --skill rust-ownership。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

rust-ownership 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

rust-ownership 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

rust-ownership 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

rust-ownership 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 256 次,近一周安装 11 次,下载 90 次,GitHub 29 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

rust-ownership 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
rust-ownership

Rust ownership 命令行 · 本页

25629只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Solution Patterns

Pattern 1: Value Moved After Use

let s1 = String::from("hello");
let s2 = s1;
// println!("{}", s1); // Compile error!

Root Cause: Ownership transferred from s1 to s2, s1 is no longer valid.

Solutions:

  • Need two copies → use clone()
  • Only need to read → pass by reference &s1
  • s2 is temporary → consider redesign

Pattern 2: Borrow Conflict

let mut s = String::from("hello");
let r1 = &s;
let r2 = &mut s; // Conflict!
// println!("{}", r1);

Root Cause: Immutable and mutable borrows coexist.

Solutions:

  • Ensure mutable borrow completes before creating new borrows
  • Restructure code organization

Pattern 3: Lifetime Mismatch

fn longest<'a>(s1: &'a str, s2: &'a str) -> &'a str {
    if s1.len() > s2.len() { s1 } else { s2 }
}

Root Cause: Return value lifetime must be tied to one of the inputs.

Key Solutions:

  1. Clarify each reference's lifetime
  2. Use named lifetimes to express relationships
  3. Prefer returning owned types

Workflow

Step 1: Who Owns the Data?

SituationOwner
Function parameterCaller owns
Function-local variableFunction owns (destroyed on return)
Struct fieldStruct instance owns
Arc<T>Multiple shared owners

Step 2: Is Borrowing Appropriate?

OperationBorrow TypeNotes
Read-only&TMultiple can coexist
Needs mutation&mut TOnly one at a time
Will original be modified during borrow?If yes, that's the issue

Step 3: Can Lifetimes Be Avoided?

Return String instead of &str
    ↓
Use owned collections instead of slices
    ↓
Use Arc/Rc for shared ownership
    ↓
Lifetimes aren't always necessary

Smart Pointer Selection

ScenarioChoiceReason
Heap-allocate single valueBox<T>Simple and direct
Single-threaded shared reference countingRc<T>Lightweight
Multi-threaded shared reference countingArc<T>Atomic operations
Need runtime borrow checkingRefCell<T>Single-threaded interior mutability
Multi-threaded interior mutabilityMutex<T> or RwLock<T>Thread-safe

Common Pitfalls

Anti-PatternProblemCorrect Approach
.clone() everywhereHides ownership issuesThink about actual ownership needs
'static for everythingToo loose and impreciseUse actual required lifetimes
Box::leak() memory leaksMemory wasteUse proper lifetime management
Fighting the borrow checkerDigging your own holeUnderstand and work with compiler design

Practical Guidance

Common Beginner Questions

1. "When should I use references vs ownership?"

  • Function parameters: use references (unless consuming)
  • Function returns: use references (if caller doesn't need ownership)
  • Storage: consider lifetime complexity

2. "How do I add lifetime annotations?"

  • Most cases: compiler can infer
  • Need explicit: structs, trait impls, methods returning references
  • Use meaningful names: 'connection, 'file

3. "Why doesn't this borrow work?"

  • Mutable borrows make original inaccessible
  • Check borrow scope ranges
  • Consider code reorganization

Error Code Quick Reference

CodeMeaningDon't SayAsk Instead
E0382Use of moved value"clone it"Who should own this data?
E0597Lifetime too short"extend lifetime"Are scope boundaries correct?
E0506Borrow not ended before mutation"end borrow first"Where should mutation occur?
E0507Move out of reference"clone before move"Why move from reference?
E0515Return non-owned data"return owned"Should caller own the data?
E0716Temporary value lifetime insufficient"bind to variable"Why is this temporary?
E0106Missing lifetime parameter"add 'a"What's the lifetime relationship?

Thinking Process

When encountering ownership issues, follow these steps:

1. What's this data's role in the domain?

  • Entity (unique identity) → owned
  • Value object (interchangeable) → clone/copy acceptable
  • Temporary computation result → consider refactor

2. Is ownership design intentional or accidental?

  • Intentional → work within constraints
  • Accidental → consider redesign

3. Fix symptom or redesign?

  • If failed 3 times → escalate to design level

Trace Up (Design Analysis)

When ownership errors persist, trace to design level:

E0382 (moved value)
    ↑ Ask: What design choice led to this ownership pattern?
    ↑ Check: Is this an entity or value object?
    ↑ Check: Are there other constraints?

Persistent E0382 → rust-resource: Should use Arc/Rc for sharing?
Persistent E0597 → rust-type-driven: Are scope boundaries correct?
E0506/E0507 → rust-mutability: Should use interior mutability?

Trace Down (Implementation)

From design decisions to implementation:

"Data needs immutable sharing"
    ↓ Multi-threaded: Arc<T>
    ↓ Single-threaded: Rc<T>

"Data needs exclusive ownership"
    ↓ Return owned value

"Data is temporary use only"
    ↓ Use references within scope

"Need to pass data between functions"
    ↓ Consider lifetimes or return owned

Review Checklist

When reviewing ownership-related code:

  • Each value has a clear owner
  • Borrows don't outlive the borrowed data
  • Mutable and immutable borrows don't overlap
  • Lifetime annotations accurately reflect data relationships
  • Smart pointer choice matches threading requirements
  • .clone() is used intentionally, not to avoid compiler errors
  • Lifetime elision is leveraged where possible
  • Complex lifetime scenarios are documented

Verification Commands

# Check compilation
cargo check

# Run tests
cargo test

# Check for common mistakes
cargo clippy -- -W clippy::clone_on_copy -W clippy::unnecessary_clone

# Verify no memory leaks in tests
cargo test --features leak-check

Common Pitfalls

1. Clone Abuse

Symptom: .clone() everywhere to satisfy compiler

Fix: Understand actual ownership requirements, use references where possible

2. Lifetime Overuse

Symptom: Complex lifetime annotations everywhere

Fix: Return owned types, use smart pointers

3. Fighting Borrow Checker

Symptom: Constantly rewriting to satisfy compiler

Fix: Step back and redesign data flow

Related Skills

  • rust-mutability - Interior mutability patterns (Cell, RefCell)
  • rust-concurrency - Send/Sync and thread safety
  • rust-unsafe - Raw pointers and manual memory management
  • rust-lifetime-complex - Advanced lifetime patterns (HRTB, GAT)
  • rust-resource - Resource management and RAII patterns
  • rust-type-driven - Type-driven design

Localized Reference

  • Chinese version: SKILL_ZH.md - 完整中文版本,包含所有内容

平台分布

Codex

33.34%
按下载量换算30

Claude

29.4%
按下载量换算26

Cursor

19.79%
按下载量换算18

Gemini CLI

9.09%
按下载量换算8

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills