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 agentmods add skills/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/golang-testingnpx skills add JunMystery/Agent-Guidance-Python --skill golang-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JunMystery/Agent-Guidance-PythonWrote 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/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/golang-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/golang-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/junmystery/agent-guidance-python/golang-testing.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>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 | $0.00035 | $0.04282 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.02141 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00856 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00428 |
Grade A, and why
golang-testing 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 yesterday.
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.
This is a copy
89% identical to golang-testing — 28 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 722 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Testing Patterns
Comprehensive Go testing patterns for writing reliable, maintainable tests following TDD methodology.
When to Activate
- Writing new Go functions or methods
- Adding test coverage to existing code
- Creating benchmarks for performance-critical code
- Implementing fuzz tests for input validation
- Following TDD workflow in Go projects
TDD Workflow for Go
The RED-GREEN-REFACTOR Cycle
RED → Write a failing test first
GREEN → Write minimal code to pass the test
REFACTOR → Improve code while keeping tests green
REPEAT → Continue with next requirement
Step-by-Step TDD in Go
// Step 1: Define the interface/signature
// calculator.go
package calculator
func Add(a, b int) int {
panic("not implemented") // Placeholder
}
// Step 2: Write failing test (RED)
// calculator_test.go
package calculator
import "testing"
func TestAdd(t *testing.T) {
got := Add(2, 3)
want := 5
if got != want {
t.Errorf("Add(2, 3) = %d; want %d", got, want)
}
}
// Step 3: Run test - verify FAIL
// $ go test
// --- FAIL: TestAdd (0.00s)
// panic: not implemented
// Step 4: Implement minimal code (GREEN)
func Add(a, b int) int {
return a + b
}
// Step 5: Run test - verify PASS
// $ go test
// PASS
// Step 6: Refactor if needed, verify tests still pass
Table-Driven Tests
The standard pattern for Go tests. Enables comprehensive coverage with minimal code.
func TestAdd(t *testing.T) {
tests := []struct {
name string
a, b int
expected int
}{
{"positive numbers", 2, 3, 5},
{"negative numbers", -1, -2, -3},
{"zero values", 0, 0, 0},
{"mixed signs", -1, 1, 0},
{"large numbers", 1000000, 2000000, 3000000},
}
for _, tt := range tests {
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
got := Add(tt.a, tt.b)
if got != tt.expected {
t.Errorf("Add(%d, %d) = %d; want %d",
tt.a, tt.b, got, tt.expected)
}
})
}
}
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.
- yesterday First seen · 722 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 6056559e12e9
golang-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository JunMystery/Agent-Guidance-Python (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 4,282 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to golang-testing, differing in 28 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
golang-testing
Go testing patterns including table-driven tests, subtests, benchmarks, fuzzing, and test coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Go practices.
tdd-workflow
Enforce practical Test-Driven Development for code changes in Go services. Use for new features, bug fixes, refactors, API changes, and new modules. Requires Red-Green-Refactor evidence, defect-hypothesis-driven tests, killer cases, and coverage gates (line + risk-path).
golang-testing
Go testing patterns including table-driven tests, subtests, benchmarks, fuzzing, and test coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Go practices.
go-check
Run go vet to analyze Go source code for suspicious constructs.
go-test
Enforce TDD workflow for Go. Write table-driven tests first, then implement. Verify 80%+ coverage with go test -cover.
blitz
/blitz - Blitz Mode Commander.