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 existential-birds/beagle --skill go-testing-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/existential-birds/beagleWrote 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/existential-birds/beagle/go-testing-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/go-testing-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/go-testing-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/existential-birds/beagle/go-testing-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/go-testing-code-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 | $0.00029 | $0.02149 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00860 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00430 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
go-testing-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 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 — 298 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Testing Code Review
Review Workflow
Follow this sequence in order. Do not emit findings until every Pass below is satisfied.
-
Baseline
go.mod— Opengo.modfor the module under review and read thegodirective.
Pass: You can state the exactgo X.YYvalue (in the review preamble or working notes). Apply version-gated advice only when it matches this baseline (e.g. fuzz tests Go 1.18+, loop-variable capture pre-Go 1.22). -
Read surrounding tests — For each
*_test.go(or benchmark/fuzz file) in scope, read full test functions and any tablestruct{...}/ helpers they use, not only the diff hunk.
Pass: At least one fullfunc Test.../func Benchmark.../func Fuzz...(or helper it calls) containing the change was read per in-scope file. -
Scope the checklist — Decide which Review Checklist rows apply (table-driven structure, parallelism, HTTP, golden files, mocks). Open references/structure.md and/or references/mocking.md for those topics; skip rows N/A to the diff with a one-line reason (e.g. “no
t.Parallelin change”).
Pass: The review (or working notes) lists which checklist themes you applied, or marks themes N/A with a diff-tied reason. -
Pre-report verification — Load and follow review-verification-protocol.
Pass: The protocol’s Pre-Report Verification Checklist is satisfied for each finding you will report (actual test code read, surrounding context checked, “wrong” vs “different style” distinguished, etc.).
Hard gates (same sequence, shorter)
| Step | Objective pass condition |
|---|---|
| 1 | go X.YY from go.mod is recorded before version-specific test advice. |
| 2 | Full enclosing test (or helper it uses) read per in-scope test file, not diff-only. |
| 3 | In-scope checklist themes listed or N/A with diff-tied reason; references opened as needed. |
| 4 | review-verification-protocol completed for every reported issue. |
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 298 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A f6fc812b4737
go-testing-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 2,149 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-16.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade curated individual tests for readiness, A-F quality and improvements. ALWAYS USE FOR: grade tests, review only a named test, per-test readiness or quality bands for supplied methods, bodies, file spans or bounded PR diffs, including existing tests. Return Pass/Failed/Uncertain/Not applicable; unresolved/empty…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
dart-mechanical-refactor
DART Mechanical Refactor: perform a behavior-preserving mechanical refactor.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.