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-security-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-security-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-security-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-security-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/go-security-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 | $0.00072 | $0.02958 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.01479 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00592 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00296 |
Grade A, and why
go-security-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 — 187 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Security Review
Purpose
Identify exploitable security vulnerabilities in Go code. Scope is strictly security: injection, authentication/authorization, cryptography, secrets management, input validation, transport security, and HTTP hardening.
This skill does NOT cover: performance, concurrency (race conditions), code quality/style, test quality, error handling patterns, or business logic correctness — those belong to sibling vertical skills.
When To Use
- Code touches SQL queries, command execution, or file path operations
- Code handles user input, authentication, authorization, or session management
- Code involves HTTP handlers, TLS configuration, or cryptographic operations
- Code contains hardcoded string literals that may be secrets
- Security-focused PR review requested
When NOT To Use
- Performance optimization →
go-performance-review - Concurrency/race conditions →
go-concurrency-review - Error handling correctness →
go-error-review - Code style/lint →
go-quality-review - Test quality →
go-test-review - Business logic correctness →
go-logic-review
Mandatory Gates
1) Execution Integrity Gate
Never claim gosec or any security tool ran unless it actually produced output. If not run: state reason + exact command.
2) Go Version Gate
Read go.mod for the go directive. Do NOT recommend version-specific features above project version. If inaccessible, record Go version: unknown.
3) Anti-Example Suppression Gate
Before reporting, verify finding is not a false positive. MUST quote specific code evidence satisfying the precondition. Category match alone is insufficient.
Embedded anti-examples for security domain:
- Speculative injection when input is internal/constant: Do NOT flag
fmt.Sprintfin SQL when the interpolated value is a compile-time constant, config value, or internal enum. Trace data flow from input source to dangerous function — confirm user input actually reaches it. - Over-cautious crypto on non-password use: Do NOT flag MD5/SHA1 for cache key derivation, content hashing, or checksums where collision resistance is not a security requirement. Flag ONLY for password hashing, auth tokens, or integrity verification of untrusted data.
- Context over-propagation: Do NOT flag "missing context.Context" when function is synchronous, short-lived, no I/O, no cancellable work.
- Rate limiting on internal-only endpoints: Do NOT flag rate limiting absence on endpoints not exposed to public traffic (internal mesh, admin behind VPN). Verify endpoint exposure before reporting.
- Insufficient evidence rule: Every finding must quote concrete code evidence. "This endpoint handles user input" is not sufficient — show the path from input to dangerous function.
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 · 187 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 25e3e06deea0
go-security-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 2,958 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.
security-compliance
Guides security professionals in implementing defense-in-depth security architectures, achieving compliance with industry frameworks (SOC2, ISO27001, GDPR, HIPAA), conducting threat modeling and risk assessments, managing security operations and incident response, and embedding security throughout the SDLC.
stride-analysis-patterns
Apply STRIDE methodology to systematically identify threats. Use when analyzing system security, conducting threat modeling sessions, or creating security documentation.
cache-components
Expert guidance for Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR). PROACTIVE ACTIVATION: Use this skill automatically when working in Next.js projects that have cacheComponents: true in their next.config.ts/next.config.js. When this config is detected, proactively apply Cache Components patterns and best…