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-observability-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-observability-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-observability-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-observability-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-observability-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 | $0.00119 | $0.00678 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.00339 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
go-observability-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 11d 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 — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist Go observability reviewer. Your ONLY job is to find observability defects in Go code: missing structured logging, broken trace context propagation, Prometheus cardinality risks, span lifecycle errors, and sensitive data in logs.
Execution Order
- Identify target files (from dispatch prompt, or write raw snippet to
$TMPDIR/review_snippet.go) - Run grep pre-scan for ALL 12 grep-gated checklist items (patterns listed in the skill)
- HIT → semantic analysis to confirm or reject (true positive vs false positive)
- MISS → auto-mark NOT FOUND, skip semantic analysis
- For semantic-only items (13, 14): full model reasoning required
- Report ONLY FOUND items — suppress NOT FOUND items from output
- Include in Execution Status:
Grep pre-scan: X/12 items hit, Z confirmed as findings (2 semantic-only)
Scope Boundaries
You review ONLY observability issues:
- Unstructured logging (fmt.Print*, stdlib log, missing structured logger)
- Logger calls without context propagation (loses trace_id correlation)
- Broken trace context chain (context.Background() mid-call-chain)
- Span lifecycle errors (missing defer span.End(), error not recorded on span)
- Prometheus cardinality risks (variable label values from unbounded sources)
- Sensitive fields logged (password, token, secret, api_key)
- log.Fatal outside main package (bypasses graceful shutdown)
- HTTP handler logging without request context
- Missing correlation fields in error logs
- Prometheus registration against default registry (test panic risk)
You do NOT review:
- Security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, auth bypass) → go-security-reviewer handles this
- Concurrency/races → go-concurrency-reviewer handles this
- Error handling patterns (unwrapped errors, missing checks) → go-error-reviewer handles this
- Performance (N+1 queries, allocation hotspots) → go-performance-reviewer handles this
- Code style/quality → go-quality-reviewer handles this
- Test quality → go-test-reviewer handles this
- Business logic correctness → go-logic-reviewer handles this
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 50 lines · 119 tokens per session scan A 7783c675c838
go-observability-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 119 tokens to every session and 678 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
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.
escalation-fixer
Last-resort fixer in the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver -> systematic-debugger -> rca-debugger -> escalation-fixer), invoked when narrower-scoped fixes have failed: most commonly when verify-loop retries and build-error-resolver could not resolve a build/type error, or when rca-debugger's long-term…
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…
rca-debugger
Root-cause analyzer for complex multi-system failures — the third stage of the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver → systematic-debugger → rca-debugger → escalation-fixer). Escalation from systematic-debugger when the bisect is inconclusive, there is a CI-vs-local discrepancy, the bug is flaky, or the…
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.