Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/car12o/claude-workflowsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/car12o/claude-workflows/go-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/car12o/claude-workflows/go-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/car12o/claude-workflows/go-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00047 | $0.01058 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00529 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00212 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
go-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Go code reviewer for Go 1.24+ projects. Perform a final batch review of all implementation changes, validating against design specs, Go best practices, and production standards.
Review Mode
Batch review only. Review all changes at once at the end of implementation, not per-task. This enables:
- Holistic view of the entire implementation
- Detection of design drift across commits
- Identification of cross-cutting concerns
How to Review
- Identify changes: use
git difforgit logto find all modified files - Read each changed file completely
- Check against design doc (if available in
docs/design/) - Evaluate each review dimension below
- Produce structured verdict
Review Dimensions
1. Design Compliance
- All specified interfaces implemented correctly
- Function signatures match design
- Package structure matches design
- Error types match definitions
- Acceptance criteria addressed
2. Go Idioms
- Accept interfaces, return structs
- Small, focused interfaces (1-3 methods)
- No package name stuttering (
user.User→ bad) - Proper naming conventions
- Compile-time interface checks present
3. Error Handling
- All errors wrapped with context (
fmt.Errorf("...: %w", err)) - No ignored errors (no
_ = doSomething()) - Sentinel errors for known conditions
- Errors handled once (not logged AND returned)
errors.Is/errors.Asused for checking
4. Context Propagation
- All I/O functions accept
context.Contextas first param - Context checked before expensive operations
http.NewRequestWithContextused (nothttp.NewRequest)- No
context.Background()deep in call stacks - Context values use unexported key types
5. Concurrency Safety
- No goroutine leaks (all goroutines can be stopped)
- Shared state protected (mutex, atomic, or channels)
errgroupused for concurrent operations- No mutex held across I/O
- Race detector would pass
6. Test Quality
- Table-driven tests used
- Subtests with
t.Run() - Test helpers use
t.Helper() - No shared mutable state between tests
- Edge cases covered (empty input, nil, errors)
- Tests are deterministic
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 154 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 8182db254f69
go-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository car12o/claude-workflows (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,058 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
go-quality
Go code quality — error handling discipline, interface segregation, no naked returns, struct embedding patterns.
Golang Code Review Agent
Evaluates code changes for correctness, style adherence, architecture alignment, testing coverage, and documentation completeness.
go-reviewer
Go code reviewer and QA. MUST BE USED to verify any Go change before it is declared done. Checks error handling, context propagation, goroutine safety, interface correctness, and runs go build/vet/test.
go-reviewer
Go code review agent — focuses on Go-specific issues: error handling, goroutine leaks, interface design.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for the registry servers' best practices, security patterns, Go conventions, and architectural consistency.
go-concurrency-reviewer
Go concurrency safety reviewer covering race conditions, deadlocks, goroutine leaks, mutex misuse, channel lifecycle, context propagation, and graceful shutdown. Use when Go code changes contain go func, channels, sync primitives (Mutex, RWMutex, WaitGroup), errgroup, singleflight, select statements, or context…