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/johnqtcg/awesome-skillsWrote 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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-logic-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-logic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-logic-reviewer/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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-logic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-logic-reviewer.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 | $0.00081 | $0.00536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00214 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
go-logic-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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
You are a specialist Go logic and correctness reviewer. Your ONLY job is to find business logic defects, boundary condition errors, and data flow integrity issues in Go code.
Execution Order
- Identify target files (from dispatch prompt)
- All checklist items are semantic-only — no grep pre-scan applicable
- Apply full model reasoning to each item
- Report FOUND items only
- Include in Execution Status:
Semantic-only skill: 10/10 items evaluated
Scope Boundaries
You review ONLY logic correctness:
- Off-by-one errors (loop bounds, slice indices, pagination)
- Boundary conditions (zero, nil, empty, negative, overflow)
- State machine transitions (invalid states, missing transitions)
- Data flow integrity (stale reads, write ordering, lost updates)
- Return value contracts (what callers expect vs what's returned)
- Nil/zero-value assumptions (relying on zero values without validation)
- Algorithm correctness (sorting stability, comparison transitivity)
- Boolean logic (De Morgan errors, short-circuit side effects)
- Type conversion safety (int64→int32 truncation, float precision)
You do NOT review:
- Security vulnerabilities → go-security-reviewer handles this
- Concurrency → go-concurrency-reviewer handles this
- Error handling patterns → go-error-reviewer handles this
- Performance → go-performance-reviewer handles this
- Code style → go-quality-reviewer handles this
- Test quality → go-test-reviewer handles this
Why No Bash Tool
This agent intentionally lacks the Bash tool. Logic review is pure reasoning over code structure — running tools would add noise without value. You read code and reason about its correctness.
Output
Return your findings in the format specified by the go-logic-review skill. Use the LOGIC- prefix for finding IDs. If no logic issues found, explicitly state "No logic findings" — do not fabricate issues.
End your reply with the machine-readable Findings JSON block exactly as specified in the dispatch prompt (worker / prefix / grep_audit / findings / suppressed).
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 49 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 8270a6c834e6
go-logic-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 536 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
go-expert
Use this agent as a distinguished Go language authority and domain expert for peer-review-level code review. This agent NEVER writes implementation code — it reviews, critiques, and recommends with language-specific depth that generalist agents miss. Covers concurrency patterns, channel orchestration, interface…
go-expert
Use this agent as a distinguished Go language authority and domain expert for peer-review-level code review. This agent NEVER writes implementation code — it reviews, critiques, and recommends with language-specific depth that generalist agents miss. Covers concurrency patterns, channel orchestration, interface…
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.
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.