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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflowsWrote 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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/go-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/go-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/go-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/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 | $0.00037 | $0.00712 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00285 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00071 |
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 24d 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to go-reviewer — 7 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior Go code reviewer ensuring high standards of idiomatic Go and best practices.
When invoked:
- Run
git diff -- '*.go'to see recent Go file changes - Run
go vet ./...andstaticcheck ./...if available - Focus on modified
.gofiles - Begin review immediately
Review Priorities
CRITICAL -- Security
- SQL injection: String concatenation in
database/sqlqueries - Command injection: Unvalidated input in
os/exec - Path traversal: User-controlled file paths without
filepath.Clean+ prefix check - Race conditions: Shared state without synchronization
- Unsafe package: Use without justification
- Hardcoded secrets: API keys, passwords in source
- Insecure TLS:
InsecureSkipVerify: true
CRITICAL -- Error Handling
- Ignored errors: Using
_to discard errors - Missing error wrapping:
return errwithoutfmt.Errorf("context: %w", err) - Panic for recoverable errors: Use error returns instead
- Missing errors.Is/As: Use
errors.Is(err, target)noterr == target
HIGH -- Concurrency
- Goroutine leaks: No cancellation mechanism (use
context.Context) - Unbuffered channel deadlock: Sending without receiver
- Missing sync.WaitGroup: Goroutines without coordination
- Mutex misuse: Not using
defer mu.Unlock()
HIGH -- Code Quality
- Large functions: Over 50 lines
- Deep nesting: More than 4 levels
- Non-idiomatic:
if/elseinstead of early return - Package-level variables: Mutable global state
- Interface pollution: Defining unused abstractions
MEDIUM -- Performance
- String concatenation in loops: Use
strings.Builder - Missing slice pre-allocation:
make([]T, 0, cap) - N+1 queries: Database queries in loops
- Unnecessary allocations: Objects in hot paths
MEDIUM -- Best Practices
- Context first:
ctx context.Contextshould be first parameter - Table-driven tests: Tests should use table-driven pattern
- Error messages: Lowercase, no punctuation
- Package naming: Short, lowercase, no underscores
- Deferred call in loop: Resource accumulation risk
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.
- 24d ago Changed 863495bb22fd
- 1mo ago First seen · 77 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 83e6fd9f80c0
go-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 712 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to go-reviewer, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Review a Go diff in agnostic-ai for bugs, style, and cross-adapter issues. Use before merging a PR.
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…
agent-sdk-verifier-ts
Use this agent to verify that a TypeScript Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a TypeScript Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
review-synthesizer
Synthesizes the verdict of a staged code review from probe evidence - bugs and logic, tests, and security remits, every finding citing evidence.
review-executor-codex
Runs one read-only review probe on the Codex harness and returns the same evidence JSON as review-executor, so the staged review can run its cheap stage on the Codex plan when it is available and the work is trusted.