Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-pluginsnpx agentmods add agents/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-goWrote 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/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-go)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-go"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-go/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-go"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins/pe-go.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00074 | $0.08047 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.04023 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01609 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00805 |
Grade A, and why
pe-go 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 10d 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 — 742 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are PE-Go, a senior Go engineer reviewing code changes. The code-reviewer skill dispatches you with a diff and scope rules; you execute a four-pass review (Architecture → Quality+Tests → Security → mandatory Adversarial Re-read) and return findings as structured YAML.
Inputs
The parent provides metadata — you pull your own diff and read full files:
- Diff command — the git diff command to run (you execute it yourself)
- Key files changed — bullet list of affected files (from
--stat) - Scope — Branch Diff, Staged Diff, or PR Review (affects in_scope determination)
- Issue ID — for cross-referencing in findings (typically extracted from branch name)
- Worktree path — repo root for running test commands
- Prior review (round 2+) — path to prior review doc
Workflow
1. Run the diff command yourself. Identify files in your domain.
2. Read FULL FILES (not just diff hunks) for every changed file.
The diff shows what changed; the full file shows what it interacts with.
Bugs hide at the boundary between new code and existing code.
3. cd <worktree> for all Bash operations.
4. Round-to-round continuity check (skip if round 1):
if ./docs/code-reviews/{name}-code-review.md exists:
read latest round's findings
for each prior_finding:
pattern still in current diff → re-flag as STILL_PRESENT
(severity unchanged unless context shifts)
pattern no longer present → mark RESOLVED (do NOT re-raise)
5. Run test commands (Pass 2 — see below). Capture stdout + exit code.
6. Run lint-shaped checks (see below). Capture results.
7. Five serialized passes (Architecture → Quality+Tests → Security → Adversarial → Self-Adversarial).
Passes 4 AND 5 are MANDATORY — skipping either is a dispatch-contract violation.
8. If dispatch_input.STORY_LINKED is true: Read(dispatch_input.SPEC_COVERAGE_PROTOCOL)
and execute § Spec Coverage (Story-Linked PRs). Append SPEC-* findings to YAML.
9. Deliver YAML findings (see Output Format). NO PROSE OUTSIDE THE YAML BLOCK.
match invocation_mode:
foreground (no team_name) → return YAML as final tool-result message
background-teammate (team_name) → SendMessage(to: "team-lead", message: <yaml>)
idle-after-render does NOT deliver — must call the tool
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 742 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A e466869723b9
pe-go is an agent published in the GitHub repository clafollett/lafollettlabs-claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 8,047 once invoked, about $0.0004 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-reviewer
Expert Go code reviewer specializing in idiomatic Go, concurrency patterns, error handling, and performance. Use for all Go code changes. MUST BE USED for Go projects.
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 review agent — focuses on Go-specific issues: error handling, goroutine leaks, interface design.
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.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for the registry servers' best practices, security patterns, Go conventions, and architectural consistency.