One was found in the Ubuntu Snap store at one point though[1]
[0]:https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malware-found...
[1]:https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/linux/malicious-packag...
It's basically unnecessary to run any sort of anti-malware program on Linux, because not enough people use it for writing viruses for it to be profitable. And because the people who use it as a desktop are generally more knowledgeable and safe with their habits.
These mechanisms for filtering packages are normally not present on systems that are plagued with malware.
As for the security review, I’d agree that no maintainer is verifying the code in every update of the software they’re packaging. This doesn’t mean that, as implied in the comment I replied to, you only have to review the 40 lines. It means that you’re accepting risk or accepting workload in either case (or both!), depending on how deep you look into the supply chain.
I agree with the rest, I'm really talking more about the comparative risk from AUR compared to the repos. The real danger is that someone snuck something malicious in the PKGBUILD and that no one noticed yet. Other than that, the threat is the same as using the repos, assuming you trust the maintainers, which is IMO a reasonable assumption if you're already using it as your distro.