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 skills add dimetron/pi-go --skill design-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dimetron/pi-goWrote 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/dimetron/pi-go/design-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dimetron/pi-go/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dimetron/pi-go/design-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/skills/dimetron/pi-go/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dimetron/pi-go/design-review.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 | $0.00030 | $0.02968 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01484 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00594 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00297 |
Grade A, and why
design-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 288 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design Review
Perform a comprehensive design review of the Go codebase. Evaluate code quality, naming conventions, consistency, and architectural patterns. Produce a scored report with actionable improvements.
When to use
Use this skill when:
- Auditing overall design quality before a major refactor or release
- Onboarding to an unfamiliar Go codebase and need a structured assessment
- Comparing codebase against Go idioms after a period of rapid development
Do NOT use for:
- Reviewing a single PR or uncommitted diff (use
code-reviewinstead) - Writing new code or fixing bugs
- Running linters/tests for CI gating (use
code-reviewinstead)
Relationship to code-review
| Aspect | design-review | code-review |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Entire codebase or package | Changed files only |
| Action | Read-only audit, scored report | Fix issues, enforce gates |
| Focus | Architecture, patterns, idioms | Correctness, coverage, linting |
| Output | Scorecard + recommendations | Pass/fail gates + fixes applied |
Dimensions
Score each dimension 1-10 and provide specific file:line references for issues found.
1. Naming Conventions
- Exported types/functions follow Go conventions (MixedCaps, no underscores)
- Package names are short, lowercase, singular (not
utils,helpers,common) - Interface names use
-ersuffix where appropriate (Reader,Writer) - Receiver names are short (1-2 chars), consistent within type
- Variable names: short in small scopes, descriptive in large scopes
- Acronyms are all-caps (
ID,URL,HTTP, notId,Url,Http) - Test function names follow
TestFuncName_Scenariopattern - Constants use MixedCaps, not SCREAMING_SNAKE
2. Package Design
- Packages have clear, singular responsibility
- No circular dependencies
- Internal packages used appropriately for implementation details
- Package-level doc comments present
- No God packages (too many responsibilities)
- Reasonable file sizes (flag files > 500 lines)
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 · 288 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 258ac67df9d5
design-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository dimetron/pi-go (155 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,968 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 2026-08-30.
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.
use-modern-go
Use the Modern Go Guidelines CLI whenever writing, modifying, fixing, or refactoring Go code. Apply its version-specific guidance to generated changes.
gograph
Go repository intelligence for Claude Code. Use when reading, navigating, editing, reviewing, or refactoring a Go codebase. Exposes 64 query, analysis, and workflow capabilities through the local gograph MCP server, including bounded first-call exploration, AST-aware call graphs, blast-radius analysis, impact, and…
code-review
Run a thorough self-review pass on the most recent change.
go
Use when writing, reviewing, testing, or shipping Go code and HTTP services: idioms, %w error wrapping, goroutine/context/errgroup concurrency, net/http 1.22 routing, log/slog, project layout, table-driven tests, Go hardening. NOT language-agnostic threat modeling (that is secure-coding), NOT Dockerfile/CI shipping…
pi-go-review
Review ported Go code for idiomatic quality — that the port maximizes Go rather than transliterating TypeScript. Use after porting upstream pi changes, or standalone on any diff in this repo.