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-quality-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-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-quality-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-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-quality-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 | $0.00079 | $0.02792 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01396 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00558 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00279 |
Grade A, and why
go-quality-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 — 201 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Quality Review
Purpose
Audit Go code for structural quality, style conformance, and modern Go practices. This skill is the designated lint-tool runner — other vertical review skills do NOT run golangci-lint/staticcheck/go vet, avoiding duplicate execution.
This skill does NOT cover: security, concurrency, performance, error handling, test quality, or business logic — those belong to sibling vertical skills.
When To Use
- Reviewing code structure and readability
- Checking Go naming conventions and package organization
- Evaluating use of modern Go features
- Need to run
golangci-lint/staticcheck/go vet
When NOT To Use
- Security vulnerabilities →
go-security-review - Concurrency safety →
go-concurrency-review - Error handling correctness →
go-error-review - Performance optimization →
go-performance-review - Business logic →
go-logic-review
Mandatory Gates
1) Go Version Gate
Read go.mod for go directive. Do NOT recommend features above project version.
| Feature | Minimum Go |
|---|---|
| Generics | 1.18 |
Typed atomics (atomic.Int64, atomic.Bool) |
1.19 |
slog, slices/maps packages, min/max builtins, sync.OnceValue/OnceFunc |
1.21 |
| Range-over-func, enhanced loop variable semantics | 1.22 |
iter.Seq, unique package |
1.23 |
2) Anti-Example Suppression Gate
MUST quote specific code evidence. Category match alone insufficient.
Embedded anti-examples:
- "Should use generics" — when only one concrete type used throughout codebase. Generics add complexity without benefit for single-type usage.
- "Should use slog" — when project targets Go < 1.21. Version-inappropriate recommendation.
- "Should use typed atomics" — when project targets Go < 1.19.
- "Exported function missing godoc" — when symbol is in
internal/package not intended for external consumers. - "Function too long (>50 lines)" — when body is a straightforward table-driven switch, sequential pipeline with no nesting, or single select/case block. These are long but simple.
- "interface{} should be any" — pure cosmetic alias rename. Report only as part of broader modernization effort, never as standalone finding.
- "Should extract helper function" — when the code would only be called from one place and extraction reduces readability by splitting context.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 201 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A c1f61cd23b7c
go-quality-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 2,792 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.