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.
npx agentmods add commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/car12o/claude-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/commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/car12o/claude-workflows/gopher-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00652 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00326 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
gopher-review 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 5d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Perform a quick Go code review without running the full development workflow.
Arguments
Parse from $ARGUMENTS:
- no args: review all uncommitted changes
- file path(s): review specific file(s)
- --staged: review only staged changes
- --diff : review changes since
<base>(branch or commit) - --pr: review the current branch's pull request
- --pr : review a specific pull request by number
Steps
1. Determine Scope
Based on arguments, identify the files to review:
# No args — all uncommitted changes
git diff --name-only
git diff --cached --name-only
# --staged
git diff --cached --name-only
# --diff <base>
git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only
# --pr (current branch's PR)
gh pr diff --name-only
# --pr <number> (specific PR)
gh pr diff <number> --name-only
# Specific files — use as-is
For --pr mode, also fetch PR metadata for context:
# Current branch PR
gh pr view --json number,title,body,baseRefName
# Specific PR
gh pr view <number> --json number,title,body,baseRefName
If gh is not available or the PR is not found, report the error and suggest using --diff <base> instead.
Filter to .go files only.
If no .go files are found in the specified scope, report "No Go files to review" and suggest alternative scopes (e.g., --staged, --diff main, or specific file paths).
2. Launch Review
Use the Task tool with subagent_type: "gopher:go-reviewer" to delegate the review. Include in the task prompt:
- The list of files to review
- The diff content for context
- For
--prmode: include the PR title and description as additional context - Instruction to focus on the targeted scope (not the entire codebase)
3. Present Results
Show the review output with:
- Verdict (PASS / NEEDS IMPROVEMENT) — note: DESIGN VIOLATION is not applicable for quick reviews since there is no design doc
- Issues grouped by severity (critical, major, minor, info)
- Specific file:line references
- Actionable recommendations
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 89 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 5e8b2a582d77
gopher-review is a command published in the GitHub repository car12o/claude-workflows (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 652 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
cli-patterns
Reference patterns for implementing CLI commands in internal/cli/.
check-go
Run Go code quality checks including formatting, linting, vetting, and tests.
golang-test-review
Use when reviewing Go test code (new or changed test.go files, test harnesses, fixtures, or test tooling) for a Go-test-expert pass — behavior-over-surface, determinism, parallel-safety, build-tag correctness, and harness reuse. Complements the general code-reviewer with test-specific rigor.
skill-go-gin-api
Padrões DARE para APIs REST em Go + Gin (ou stdlib net/http) + sqlc + PostgreSQL. Handlers, services, repositories, middleware, validador, JWT, rate limit, swag OpenAPI.
go-conventions
Scan the current Go repo and write .claude/go-conventions.md — a project-specific convention file that rules/go.md loads on every session instead of re-scanning the codebase from scratch. Use when starting work in a new Go repo, when conventions have drifted, or when --refresh is passed to merge in new patterns.
add-test-fixture-and-go-test-for-langgraph-js-rule
Workflow command scaffold for add-test-fixture-and-go-test-for-langgraph-js-rule in shingan.