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/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notesWrote 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/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/go-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/go-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/go-review/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/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/go-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes/go-review.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 | $0.00007 | $0.00442 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00177 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
go-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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to go-review — 0 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.
What it actually says
Go Review Command
Review Go code for idiomatic patterns and best practices: $ARGUMENTS
Your Task
- Analyze Go code for idioms and patterns
- Check concurrency - goroutines, channels, mutexes
- Review error handling - proper error wrapping
- Verify performance - allocations, bottlenecks
Review Checklist
Idiomatic Go
- Package naming (lowercase, no underscores)
- Variable naming (camelCase, short)
- Interface naming (ends with -er)
- Error naming (starts with Err)
Error Handling
- Errors are checked, not ignored
- Errors wrapped with context (
fmt.Errorf("...: %w", err)) - Sentinel errors used appropriately
- Custom error types when needed
Concurrency
- Goroutines properly managed
- Channels buffered appropriately
- No data races (use
-raceflag) - Context passed for cancellation
- WaitGroups used correctly
Performance
- Avoid unnecessary allocations
- Use
sync.Poolfor frequent allocations - Prefer value receivers for small structs
- Buffer I/O operations
Code Organization
- Small, focused packages
- Clear dependency direction
- Internal packages for private code
- Godoc comments on exports
Report Format
Idiomatic Issues
- [file:line] Issue description Suggestion: How to fix
Error Handling Issues
- [file:line] Issue description Suggestion: How to fix
Concurrency Issues
- [file:line] Issue description Suggestion: How to fix
Performance Issues
- [file:line] Issue description Suggestion: How to fix
TIP: Run go vet and staticcheck for additional automated checks.
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 · 72 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A f082baa55817
go-review is a command published in the GitHub repository loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes (271 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 442 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to go-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-golang
Run a comprehensive Go code review on git-changed files.
go-review
Comprehensive Go code review for idiomatic patterns, concurrency safety, error handling, and security. Invokes the go-reviewer agent.
rust-critique
Deep code critique — read the target Rust code and apply the full review process. Evaluates soundness, ownership, error handling, type design, async correctness, performance, and architecture. Think like a senior Rust engineer giving honest feedback.
dotnet-teach
One-time setup that scans a .NET backend project, learns its conventions and architecture, and writes them to CLAUDE.md for future sessions.
rust-harden
Harden Rust code — replace unwrap with proper error handling, add safety comments to unsafe blocks, enable overflow checks, validate inputs at boundaries. The defensive hardening pass.
rust-polish
Final pre-merge polish — remove dead code, verify doc comments, clean clippy, check all Result paths, remove debug artifacts. The last 5% that takes 50% of the effort.