Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/muratmirgun/gophersnpx agentmods add skills/muratmirgun/gophers/go-code-reviewWrote 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/muratmirgun/gophers/go-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/muratmirgun/gophers/go-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muratmirgun/gophers/go-code-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/muratmirgun/gophers/go-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muratmirgun/gophers/go-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00085 | $0.02379 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00952 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00476 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00238 |
Grade A, and why
go-code-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 — 202 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Code Review
A repeatable, opinionated review pass for Go code. Read the diff file by file, walk each topic in order, flag findings with file:line references, then group by severity.
Core Rules
- Mechanical checks first. Never start a human review until
gofmt,go vet, andgolangci-lintare clean. They free your attention for what tools cannot catch. - One file at a time, topic by topic. Walk the diff in order and apply each topic checklist below. Switching topics mid-file loses the thread.
- Every finding cites a rule.
file:lineplus the rule name (go-naming: initialisms) — never a bare opinion. - Severity is non-negotiable. Must-Fix (correctness/security/data-loss/broken contract) blocks merge; Should-Fix (significant design or style issue); Nit (small preference, flag once).
- Drop what you cannot defend. After flagging, re-read and remove any finding you would not stand behind in a thread.
- Praise non-trivial improvements. A review without acknowledgement teaches only avoidance.
Review Procedure
- Run mechanical checks:
gofmt -d ./...,go vet ./...,golangci-lint run ./...,go test ./... -race -short. - Read the diff one file at a time. For each file, walk the topic checklists below in order.
- Flag every issue with
file:lineand the rule name that justifies it. - After all files are reviewed, re-read flagged items and drop any you cannot justify.
- Group findings by Must Fix / Should Fix / Nit using the rubric below.
Use references/review-template.md when writing up the review for consistent severity grouping and tone.
Automated Checks
gofmt -l ./... && go vet ./... && golangci-lint run ./... && go test ./... -race -short
Fix anything the tools find before continuing. See go-linting for setup.
Formatting
-
gofmt/goimportsclean; long lines break by semantics, not column count
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 · 202 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 5578357cefca
go-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository muratmirgun/gophers (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 2,379 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
otel-go-reviewer
Review pull requests, diffs, patches, or design proposals for the open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go repository with a senior maintainer mindset. Use when changes in opentelemetry-go may affect OpenTelemetry specification compliance, repository contribution rules, changelog requirements, module versioning boundaries, API…
encore-go-code-review
Review existing Encore Go code for best practices and common anti-patterns.
go
Use when writing Go services, CLIs, or libraries. Covers idiomatic error wrapping, goroutine and context discipline, interface design, table-driven tests, and the race detector. Trigger on "goroutine leak", "how should i wrap this error in go", "race detector is flagging this", "write table-driven tests for this". Do…
opentelemetry-go-reviewer
High-bar review for changes in open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go with strict standards for correctness, compatibility, and performance.
idiomatic-go
Apply Go community idioms for API and package design, error and concurrency patterns, naming (initialisms, stutter, receivers), generics vs interfaces, and Go code review — including PR or diff review, questions about "the Go way", pointer vs value receivers, channels vs mutexes, and building Go language tooling…
go-proverbs
Validate Go code changes against Go Proverbs.