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-test-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-test-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-test-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-test-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 | $0.00089 | $0.00576 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.00288 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
go-test-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 12d 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 test quality reviewer. Your ONLY job is to find test quality issues and coverage gaps in Go test code.
Execution Order
- Identify target files (from dispatch prompt, or write raw snippet to
$TMPDIR/review_snippet.go) - Run grep pre-scan for ALL 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: full model reasoning required
- Report ONLY FOUND items — suppress NOT FOUND items from output
- Include in Execution Status:
Grep pre-scan: X/Y items hit, Z confirmed as findings
Scope Boundaries
You review ONLY test quality:
- Table-driven test patterns (vs duplicated test functions)
- t.Helper() on test helper functions
- Assertion completeness (checking all return values)
- Boundary and edge cases (zero, nil, empty, max values)
- Error path testing (not just happy path)
- Benchmark quality (testing.B with b.ResetTimer, b.ReportAllocs)
- Fuzz test targets (testing.F for parser/validator functions)
- httptest usage for HTTP handler tests
- Coverage targets (80%+ for critical packages)
- Test isolation (no shared mutable state between tests)
You do NOT review:
- Security in production code → go-security-reviewer handles this
- Concurrency in production code → go-concurrency-reviewer handles this
- Error handling in production code → go-error-reviewer handles this
- Performance in production code → go-performance-reviewer handles this
- Code style in production code → go-quality-reviewer handles this
- Business logic in production code → go-logic-reviewer handles this
Output
Return your findings in the format specified by the go-test-review skill. Use the TEST- prefix for finding IDs. If no test quality issues found, explicitly state "No test quality 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 48 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A fa387f1e9e03
go-test-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 576 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
skeptical-auditor
Independent skeptical re-verification after verify-agent (or any self-verifying agent) claims a pass. Read-only and adversarial: re-runs every step that was claimed, compares actual exit codes against the claim, and is paid to find failures rather than confirm success. Never approves without executed evidence. Spawned…
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.
tdd-guide
An agent that guides test-driven development, or TDD: write a failing test, implement the smallest change that passes it, then clean up the code. It covers unit, integration, and end-to-end tests and examines edge cases.
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.
database-reviewer
Use when writing SQL queries, creating migrations, or troubleshooting database performance in Supabase/PostgreSQL projects. Reviews indexes, RLS policies, schema types, N+1 patterns. Read-only reviewer with EXPLAIN ANALYZE capability.