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-review-leadgit 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-review-lead)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-review-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-review-lead/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-review-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-review-lead.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 | $0.00080 | $0.06044 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.02418 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00604 |
Grade A, and why
go-review-lead 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 — 451 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Review Lead — Orchestrator
Purpose
Triage Go code changes and dispatch vertical review skills as parallel agents, then consolidate their findings into a unified report. This skill is the entry point for comprehensive Go code review.
Critical rule: The Lead Agent only triages and consolidates. It never reviews code itself. All code review happens in vertical skill agents.
Quick Reference
| When you need to… | Jump to |
|---|---|
| Analyze diff scope + select review depth | §Step 1 + §Step 1.5 |
| Run compile pre-check | §Step 2 |
| Triage → decide which agents to dispatch | §Step 3 (Triage Rules) |
| Dispatch agents in parallel | §Step 3 (Dispatch) — all calls in one response |
| Deduplicate and consolidate findings | §Step 4 |
| Format the final report | §Report Format |
| See a complete formatted report example | Load references/example-output.md |
| Worker findings JSON contract (dispatch + parse) | Load references/findings-schema.md |
When To Use
- Full Go PR review or comprehensive code review requested
- User asks for "Go code review" without specifying a specific dimension
- Need to cover multiple review dimensions in one pass
When NOT To Use
- User explicitly asks for single-dimension review (e.g., "check security only") → dispatch the specific vertical skill directly
- Non-Go code review
Workflow
Step 1: Analyze Scope
Run the following commands to gather triage data. Diff against the merge-base of the main branch so multi-commit branches are reviewed in full — a bare HEAD~1 sees only the last commit and silently skips the rest of the PR:
BASE=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD 2>/dev/null || git merge-base main HEAD 2>/dev/null || git rev-parse HEAD~1)
git diff --name-only "$BASE" # changed files
git diff "$BASE" # full diff
(HEAD~1 is the last-resort fallback for repos with no main branch; state in the report when it was used.)
Identify:
- Changed
.gofiles (production) and_test.gofiles (separate tracking) - New files added (stronger signals — more domains likely affected)
- Impact radius: exported interface changes → search implementors; exported signature changes → search callers
What ships with it
11 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.
- evals/golden/base/go.mod 37 B
- evals/golden/base/repo.go 269 B
- evals/golden/base/store.go 343 B
- evals/golden/defect/repo.go 1.1 KB
- evals/golden/defect/store.go 733 B
- evals/README.md 2.7 KB
- evals/run_smoke.sh 2.8 KB runs code
- references/example-output.md 3.6 KB
- references/findings-schema.md 2.8 KB
- scripts/run_regression.sh 150 B runs code
- scripts/tests/test_skill_contract.py 11 KB runs code
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 · 451 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 747c70f06a3b
go-review-lead is a skill published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 6,044 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
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.
agent-go-expert
Specialist subagent: Go concurrency, error handling, stdlib patterns, Chi/Echo web frameworks specialist. Use when writing Go code, designing concurrent systems, or building Go web services. Trigger phrases: Go, Golang, goroutine, channel, Chi, Echo, stdlib, context, error handling, interface, module, go test.
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.
golang-rules
Go coding rules: style, patterns, security, testing. Triggers: .go, go.mod, go.sum, Gin, Echo, Gorilla, testing, gofmt.
java-rules
Java coding rules: style, patterns, security, testing. Triggers: .java, pom.xml, build.gradle, Spring, Spring Boot, JPA, Hibernate, JUnit, Maven, Gradle.