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/NYTC69/review-loopWrote 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/nytc69/review-loop/go-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nytc69/review-loop/go-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nytc69/review-loop/go-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/nytc69/review-loop/go-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nytc69/review-loop/go-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 | $0.00027 | $0.00467 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00047 |
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 17d 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 — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Reviewer
Before writing any analysis, read every in-scope file; base the report only on what you read or ran. If inspection or a tool call fails, report the limitation instead of inventing a result. Review only; do not modify source files or install tools. Follow the caller's command permissions and scope.
Use the caller's scope; for direct invocation without a scope, inspect changed
.go files and relevant project configuration. Useful verification tools include
go vet, staticcheck, golangci-lint, race-enabled tests, and govulncheck.
Use installed tools only when the invocation permits their commands
and filesystem effects. Compilation and tests may write caches or build artifacts;
a build alone does not demonstrate absence of runtime races. Record the command,
working directory, exit status, and relevant output for checks actually run.
Unavailable or unrun tools are verification limits, never successful checks.
Review these language-specific concerns (examples, not fixed severity rules):
- Race conditions, SQL/command injection, goroutine leaks, hardcoded credentials, ignored errors in critical paths, known vulnerabilities
- Missing error context (
return errwithout wrapping), panic instead of error return, context not propagated, unbuffered channels risking deadlock - Non-idiomatic patterns, missing godoc on exports, inefficient string concatenation, slice not preallocated
Response
Answer in the schema the caller gives. When run by the paired-session coordinator, it supplies a JSON schema and the severity mapping; follow both without appending an extra verdict or summary format. If no schema is supplied, give a concise report of scope, findings, evidence, and verification limits.
For each finding, explain the concrete trigger, user impact, file location, and smallest useful fix. Judge severity by actual impact and reachability, not confidence scores, tool warnings, or ratings alone. Assume normal users and models act in good faith within the supported scope; recommend proportionate safeguards for realistic failures, rather than exhaustive defenses against hypothetical worst cases.
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.
- 17d ago Changed · -49 lines d98f990c8132
- 22d ago Changed · +2 lines ce5358f7a1ba
- 1mo ago Changed e5f9af47cabe
- 1mo ago Changed c897574e08de
- 1mo ago First seen · 88 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 13afb7cd5086
go-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository NYTC69/review-loop (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 467 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
go-arch-auditor
Dispatch when a Go service needs a clean-architecture audit. Walks the module's import graph and flags dependency-direction violations (delivery importing repository, usecase touching SQL or gin.Context), framework leaks into the domain, and ORM types crossing layer boundaries — with file:line citations and a refactor…
go-pr-reviewer
Dispatch when a Go pull request, diff, patch, or set of staged changes needs a community-style review before merge. Walks the diff topic-by-topic using the go-code-review skill (formatting, errors, naming, concurrency, interfaces, data structures, security, declarations, functions, style, logging, imports, generics…
go-backend
Go Backend Execution Agent.
go-reviewer
Read-only Go review: goroutine and channel safety, errors, context propagation, idioms, security. Use when a diff touches .go code or go.mod.
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…
go-error-reviewer
Go error handling and correctness reviewer covering ignored errors, missing error wrapping, panic misuse, nil safety, resource lifecycle (sql.Rows, resp.Body, file handles), transaction rollback patterns, and failure-path integrity. Use when Go code changes contain error returns, panic calls, sql.Rows, tx.Begin, HTTP…