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/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teamsWrote 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/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/go-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/go-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/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/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/go-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00838 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00419 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00168 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00084 |
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 10d 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
94% identical to go-review — 8 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 — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Code Review
This command invokes the go-reviewer agent for comprehensive Go-specific code review.
What This Command Does
- Identify Go Changes: Find modified
.gofiles viagit diff - Run Static Analysis: Execute
go vet,staticcheck, andgolangci-lint - Security Scan: Check for SQL injection, command injection, race conditions
- Concurrency Review: Analyze goroutine safety, channel usage, mutex patterns
- Idiomatic Go Check: Verify code follows Go conventions and best practices
- Generate Report: Categorize issues by severity
When to Use
Use /go-review when:
- After writing or modifying Go code
- Before committing Go changes
- Reviewing pull requests with Go code
- Onboarding to a new Go codebase
- Learning idiomatic Go patterns
Review Categories
CRITICAL (Must Fix)
- SQL/Command injection vulnerabilities
- Race conditions without synchronization
- Goroutine leaks
- Hardcoded credentials
- Unsafe pointer usage
- Ignored errors in critical paths
HIGH (Should Fix)
- Missing error wrapping with context
- Panic instead of error returns
- Context not propagated
- Unbuffered channels causing deadlocks
- Interface not satisfied errors
- Missing mutex protection
MEDIUM (Consider)
- Non-idiomatic code patterns
- Missing godoc comments on exports
- Inefficient string concatenation
- Slice not preallocated
- Table-driven tests not used
Automated Checks Run
# Static analysis
go vet ./...
# Advanced checks (if installed)
staticcheck ./...
golangci-lint run
# Race detection
go build -race ./...
# Security vulnerabilities
govulncheck ./...
Example Usage
User: /go-review
Agent:
# Go Code Review Report
## Files Reviewed
- internal/handler/user.go (modified)
- internal/service/auth.go (modified)
## Static Analysis Results
✓ go vet: No issues
✓ staticcheck: No issues
## Issues Found
[CRITICAL] Race Condition
File: internal/service/auth.go:45
Issue: Shared map accessed without synchronization
```go
var cache = map[string]*Session{} // Concurrent access!
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 149 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 4cbaf58d3f2d
go-review is a command published in the GitHub repository multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 838 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to go-review, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
go-review
Comprehensive Go code review for idiomatic patterns, concurrency safety, error handling, and security. Invokes the go-reviewer agent.
review-golang
Run a comprehensive Go code review on git-changed files.
go-review
A Go code review command that examines changed Go files for coding conventions, error handling, security, and concurrency problems.
go-review
Comprehensive Go code review for idiomatic patterns, concurrency safety, error handling, and security. Invokes the go-reviewer agent.
go-review
Comprehensive Go code review for idiomatic patterns, concurrency safety, error handling, and security. Invokes the go-reviewer agent.
go-review
Go code review for idiomatic patterns.