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 eduardo-sl/go-agent-skills --skill go-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eduardo-sl/go-agent-skillsWrote 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/eduardo-sl/go-agent-skills/go-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eduardo-sl/go-agent-skills/go-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eduardo-sl/go-agent-skills/go-code-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/eduardo-sl/go-agent-skills/go-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eduardo-sl/go-agent-skills/go-code-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 | $0.00000 | $0.01713 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00685 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00343 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00171 |
Grade A, and why
go-code-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 12d 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 — 189 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Code Review
Structured code review process for Go. Reviews should be constructive, specific, and cite the relevant principle behind each finding.
Operating Modes
Pick the mode that matches the request before starting:
- Diff review (default) — review only the changed lines plus enough surrounding context to judge them. Use for PRs and working-tree changes.
- File/package review — review the named files or packages in full, including their tests.
- Full audit — sweep the entire codebase. Use the strategy in "Auditing Large Codebases" below and aggregate everything into one report.
Review Process
Execute these steps in order. For each finding, classify severity:
- 🔴 BLOCKER — Must fix before merge. Correctness, data loss, security.
- 🟡 WARNING — Should fix. Maintainability, idiomatic Go, clarity.
- 🟢 SUGGESTION — Consider improving. Style, naming, documentation.
0. Run the Toolchain First
Before reading code manually, let the tools catch the mechanical issues (skip any tool that is not installed and note it in the report):
go build ./... # it must compile
go vet ./... # suspicious constructs
golangci-lint run # if the repo has a config
go test -race ./... # tests pass, no data races
Report tool findings alongside manual findings — a failing go vet is
an automatic 🔴 BLOCKER. Never report an issue a tool already proves
absent.
Verify Before Reporting
A finding that is wrong costs the author time and the reviewer trust. Before writing one up:
- Follow the diff outward. Read the callers of a changed function and the callees it now relies on (the go-semantic-tools skill finds them by type, not by name). A bug can live outside the diff yet be triggered by it — and a "bug" inside it can be unreachable because a caller already guarantees the precondition.
- Lower severity for upstream guarantees, don't drop the finding. A nil dereference behind a constructor that never returns nil is a 🟢 SUGGESTION to make that contract explicit, not a 🔴 BLOCKER.
- Ask when intent is unclear rather than asserting a bug — "is
retriesmeant to include the first attempt?" beats a wrong fix. - Propose a check, not just an opinion. Where a linter, a vet analyzer or a test could catch the issue next time, name it.
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.
- 12d ago Changed · +18 lines 8876436576fd
- 1mo ago First seen · 171 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A bfe2a4f374af
go-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository eduardo-sl/go-agent-skills (83 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,713 tokens. 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
pr-to-go-linter
Generate a new pkg/linters analyzer from a merged or open PR pattern.
golang-refactoring
Golang refactoring — safe, at-scale restructuring of existing Go code: a coverage-adaptive safety net, behavior-preserving transforms (gopls Rename/Extract, gofmt -r, gopatch), the Fowler catalog mapped to Go, breaking import cycles, and small stacked PRs. Apply when a function or type has grown too large, a code…
go-spec-reviewer
Review design specification documents for Go programs before implementation begins. Use this skill when a user has a Go spec, design doc, RFC, or PRD to review, wants feedback on a planned feature in a Go codebase, is about to start implementing from a spec, or asks "is this spec ready?" or "review this before I build…
design-review
Deep design review of Go codebase — naming, structure, consistency, interfaces, error handling. Scores each dimension and provides actionable fixes.
agents-md
Generate AGENTS.md files for Go, Rust, TypeScript, and Java projects. Use this skill whenever the user asks to create, scaffold, bootstrap, update, or review an AGENTS.md (or agent-instructions, CLAUDE.md, repo guide for agents) file in a codebase. Also trigger when the user says "add AGENTS.md", "make this repo…
ring:verifying-code
Verifying a Go project: runs every quality check (lint, vet, imports, format, docs, unit, integration, E2E) and returns a single MERGEREADY or NEEDSFIX verdict. Report-only: never fixes anything. Use for a quick pre-merge or pre-PR check outside a full dev-cycle. Skip when not a Go project, when you want a single…