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 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.01183 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 2,958 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.
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.
code-reviewer
Perform thorough code reviews — bugs, security issues, performance bottlenecks, style violations, and architectural concerns.
security-auditor
Audit code for security vulnerabilities — OWASP Top 10, injection flaws, auth issues, secrets exposure, and dependency risks.
feedback-builder
Point Aeon at a service's /feedback endpoint - pull what agents reported (bugs, missing features), triage and cluster it, then build the best accepted request as a PR for a human to approve.