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/vibeeval/vibecosystemWrote 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/vibeeval/vibecosystem/go-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vibeeval/vibecosystem/go-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vibeeval/vibecosystem/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/vibeeval/vibecosystem/go-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vibeeval/vibecosystem/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 | $0.01777 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00711 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00355 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00178 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 268 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
Security Checks (CRITICAL)
-
SQL Injection: String concatenation in
database/sqlqueries// Bad db.Query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = " + userID) // Good db.Query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1", userID) -
Command Injection: Unvalidated input in
os/exec// Bad exec.Command("sh", "-c", "echo " + userInput) // Good exec.Command("echo", userInput) -
Path Traversal: User-controlled file paths
// Bad os.ReadFile(filepath.Join(baseDir, userPath)) // Good cleanPath := filepath.Clean(userPath) if strings.HasPrefix(cleanPath, "..") { return ErrInvalidPath } -
Race Conditions: Shared state without synchronization
-
Unsafe Package: Use of
unsafewithout justification -
Hardcoded Secrets: API keys, passwords in source
-
Insecure TLS:
InsecureSkipVerify: true -
Weak Crypto: Use of MD5/SHA1 for security purposes
Error Handling (CRITICAL)
-
Ignored Errors: Using
_to ignore errors// Bad result, _ := doSomething() // Good result, err := doSomething() if err != nil { return fmt.Errorf("do something: %w", err) } -
Missing Error Wrapping: Errors without context
// Bad return err // Good return fmt.Errorf("load config %s: %w", path, err) -
Panic Instead of Error: Using panic for recoverable errors
-
errors.Is/As: Not using for error checking
// Bad if err == sql.ErrNoRows // Good if errors.Is(err, sql.ErrNoRows)
Concurrency (HIGH)
- Goroutine Leaks: Goroutines that never terminate
// Bad: No way to stop goroutine go func() { for { doWork() } }() // Good: Context for cancellation go func() { for { select { case <-ctx.Done(): return default: doWork() } } }()
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 · 268 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A d84e11d2632d
go-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vibeeval/vibecosystem (536 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,777 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-reviewer
Security vulnerability detection and remediation specialist. Use PROACTIVELY after writing code that handles user input, authentication, API endpoints, or sensitive data. Flags secrets, SSRF, injection, unsafe crypto, and OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
solid-open-closed-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Open/Closed Principle (OCP).
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
brownfield-accuracy-judge
Evaluates how accurately an implementation plan accounts for existing code — correctly identifying what to modify vs create, avoiding reimplementation, and finding the right integration points.
verification-subagent
Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.