Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to archcore-ai/cli. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/archcore-ai/cli/main/.claude/skills/review-go/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/archcore-ai/cliWrote 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/skills/archcore-ai/cli/review-go)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/archcore-ai/cli/review-go"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archcore-ai/cli/review-go/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/skills/archcore-ai/cli/review-go"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archcore-ai/cli/review-go.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00070 | $0.01174 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00470 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00235 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
review-go 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Archcore CLI — Go Code Review
Step 1: Identify Changed Go Files
git diff --name-only HEAD -- '*.go'
git diff --cached --name-only -- '*.go'
Combine and deduplicate. Split into two lists:
- Source files:
*.goexcluding_test.go - Test files:
*_test.go
If no changed .go files found, ask the user which files or directories to review.
Step 2: Retrieve Project Code Quality Agreements from Archcore
Use the archcore MCP tools to load project-specific conventions that the review must check against.
- Call
list_documentswithtags: ["code-quality"]to find every binding coding agreement. Do not narrow the tag:code-reviewreturns only a subset of.archcore/code-quality/. - For each returned document, call
get_documentwith its path to retrieve the full content. - Collect all document contents — these are the project-specific review rules that supplement the general Go review areas.
These documents contain established patterns extracted from the actual codebase (error handling conventions, naming rules, testing patterns, etc.). The reviewer agent must check changed code against these agreements.
Step 3: Pre-fetch Library Documentation via Context7 MCP
The golang-pro agent does NOT have Context7 MCP tools — fetch docs now.
- Read
go.modfor third-party dependencies. - Scan changed Go files for
importstatements. Identify which third-party libraries are used. - For each non-trivial library (skip stdlib, skip obvious ones):
a. Call
resolve-library-idwith the module path (e.g.,github.com/spf13/cobra) b. If resolved, callquery-docswith the resolved ID and a topic query relevant to usage in the changed code - Limit to 3-5 most important libraries.
Step 4: Launch golang-pro Agent for Review
Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: "ai-kit:golang-pro". Pass a prompt that includes:
- The list of changed
.gofile paths (source and test files) - The full text of all archcore code review documents from Step 2
- The pre-fetched library documentation from Step 3
- The review instructions below
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 Changed · +1 lines fa5d9cfee35c
- 1mo ago First seen · 105 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A 2f161b047d1e
review-go is a skill published in the GitHub repository archcore-ai/cli (66 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 1,174 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-go
Deep Go-specific code review covering goroutine lifecycle, data races, error wrapping, domain modeling, and interface design. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when Go code is detected. Invoked when reviewing Go PRs, Go code changes, or performing Go-specific quality checks.
go-concurrency-reviewer
Review selected Go concurrency paths for goroutine ownership, channels, cancellation, synchronization, memory-model, and shutdown defects under actual version and workload contracts.
go-error-reviewer
Review selected Go failure paths for error identity, wrapping, inspection, cleanup, cancellation, recovery, and public diagnostic contracts.
go-modernizer
Review assigned Go modernization opportunities against actual language, toolchain, module API, compatibility, and behavior constraints; propose ordered migrations without applying edits.
go-performance-reviewer
Review assigned Go performance paths and claims using workload, profiling, benchmark, allocation, GC, contention, I/O, pool, and cache evidence.
go-reviewer
Review selected Go code for architecture, API, SQL, error, resource, and value-semantics defects using actual toolchain, module, framework, and caller contracts.