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 johnqtcg/awesome-skills --skill go-error-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/johnqtcg/awesome-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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-error-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-error-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-error-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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-error-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-error-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 170 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00075 | $0.02611 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.01306 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00522 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00261 |
Grade A, and why
go-error-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 11d 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 — 207 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Error Review
Purpose
Audit Go code for error handling correctness, nil safety, and failure-path integrity. Core question for every function call: "What happens when it fails?"
This skill merges error handling + API request/response correctness + database operation correctness because they share one review lens: "does this code handle failure correctly?"
This skill does NOT cover: security vulnerabilities, concurrency safety, performance, code style, test quality, or business logic — those belong to sibling vertical skills.
When To Use
- Code contains error return values
- Code uses
panic/recover - Code involves
sql.Rows, transactions, connection pools - Code involves HTTP request/response body handling
- Code operates on
[]*Tpointer slices
When NOT To Use
- Security vulnerabilities →
go-security-review - Concurrency safety →
go-concurrency-review - Performance optimization →
go-performance-review - Code style →
go-quality-review - Business logic →
go-logic-review
Mandatory Gates
1) Execution Integrity Gate
Never claim tests ran unless they actually did. If not run: state reason + exact command.
2) Go Version Gate
Read go.mod. Key features:
errors.Is/errors.As(Go 1.13+)errors.Join(Go 1.20+)fmt.Errorfwith multiple%w(Go 1.20+)
3) Anti-Example Suppression Gate
MUST quote specific code evidence. Category match alone insufficient.
Embedded anti-examples:
- "Missing error handling on json.Marshal" — when marshaling known-safe struct with only primitive fields (string, int, bool, no interface fields).
json.Marshalon such structs always returns nil error. - "Missing error wrapping" — when caller already wraps; adding another layer creates redundant context like
"create user: insert user: insert row: ...". Cite the caller's wrapping code. - "Speculative nil dereference" — when caller is internal and always passes non-nil. Cite the caller code proving it never passes nil.
- "Should use errors.Is instead of ==" — direct
==against sentinel from the same package is acceptable. Cross-package comparison must useerrors.Is. - "defer f.Close() ignoring error" — acceptable for read-only file opens. Flag only for write operations where Close flushes buffered data.
What ships with it
4 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 207 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A cbc9a332608f
go-error-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 2,611 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
go-concurrency-reviewer
Audit Go concurrency — goroutines, channels, mutexes, context propagation, race conditions.
go-error-reviewer
Deep audit of Go error handling — wrapping, inspection, logging, panic/recover patterns.
go-modernizer
Detect outdated Go patterns and suggest modern idioms — Go 1.21 through 1.24+ features.