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/ofershap/go-best-practicesWrote 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/ofershap/go-best-practices/audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ofershap/go-best-practices/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ofershap/go-best-practices/audit/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/ofershap/go-best-practices/audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ofershap/go-best-practices/audit.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00186 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00074 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00037 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00019 |
Grade A, and why
audit 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.
What it actually says
Scan the current project for Go anti-patterns and best practice violations.
For each issue found:
- Show the file and line
- Explain what's wrong
- Show the correct pattern
- Rate severity: critical / warning / info
Check for these violations (use the go-best-practices skill for reference):
- Bare error propagation (return err without wrapping)
- log.Printf or log package instead of slog
- context.Context stored in structs
- Error comparison with == instead of errors.Is/errors.As
- C-style for loops instead of range over int (Go 1.22+)
- Goroutines without exit paths or lifecycle management
- init() for dependency setup
- Interfaces returned from package constructors
- panic used for expected/recoverable errors
- Ignored errors with _ = ...
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 · 27 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A b8f6dde44acf
audit is a command published in the GitHub repository ofershap/go-best-practices (2 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 186 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
audit
Audit the current codebase for Python best practice violations.
bmad-code-review
Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code".
bmad-review-edge-case-hunter
Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.
bmad-review-adversarial-general
Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something.
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.