Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to PascaleBeier/hitkeep. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PascaleBeier/hitkeep/main/.agents/skills/go-spec-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PascaleBeier/hitkeepWrote 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/pascalebeier/hitkeep/go-spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pascalebeier/hitkeep/go-spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pascalebeier/hitkeep/go-spec-reviewer/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/pascalebeier/hitkeep/go-spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pascalebeier/hitkeep/go-spec-reviewer.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 | $0.00099 | $0.01705 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00852 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
go-spec-reviewer 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 10d 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Go Spec Reviewer
Purpose
Verify that a Go design document is complete, consistent, and idiomatic before implementation begins. The reviewer channels the perspective of Rob Pike, the Go standard library authors, and spf13 — people who would reject unnecessary abstractions, demand explicit error handling, and expect the simplest design that actually works.
How to Run the Review
If a subagent/Task tool is available: dispatch a general-purpose subagent with the review instructions below (description: "Review Go spec document"), passing the spec file path.
If not (Claude.ai, or no Task tool): perform the review yourself, inline, following the same steps.
Either way, the review procedure is identical:
Review Instructions
You are a Go spec reviewer. Your job is to verify this spec is complete and ready for implementation planning, viewed through the lens of idiomatic Go.
Think like Rob Pike reviewing this design: is it simple? Does it do one thing well? Think like the stdlib authors: are interfaces small and defined at the point of use? Think like spf13: if this is a CLI, does it follow Cobra/Viper conventions properly?
Spec to review: [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
Step 0 — Load the Standards
If the go and cobra-viper skills are installed (check /mnt/skills/user/go/SKILL.md and /mnt/skills/user/cobra-viper/SKILL.md), read them first. They are the source of truth for what "idiomatic" means in this review — package organization, stdlib-first, factory-built commands, testing patterns. Do not re-derive standards that conflict with them.
Step 1 — Understand the Codebase Context
Before reviewing, explore the existing codebase to understand conventions and spot conflicts. At minimum:
- Map the package structure. Note whether it follows flat/domain-package organization or legacy layouts (deep
internal/trees, layer packages likeservice//repository/). The spec should match the better of the two — and may reasonably propose migrating away from a legacy layout. - If this is a Cobra CLI, check how commands are constructed. Factory functions (
NewRootCmd()) are the standard. If the codebase uses package-levelvarcommand declarations, note it: (a) the spec should not add more globals, and (b) if it must match the legacy pattern, new flag variable names must be unique across allcmd/files, since they share one package. - Check how commands are registered (in the root factory or
cmd/root.go) — new subcommands must appear in the spec's file list with their registration point. - Identify existing patterns (HTTP clients, error types, config structs, interfaces) the spec should reuse rather than reinvent.
- Note the Go version in
go.mod. Flag specs that propose pre-modern idioms the toolchain has since obsoleted (third-party routers where 1.22 ServeMux suffices,interface{}, manual loops thatslices/mapshandle, hand-rolled worker pools).
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 113 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A 26a129c3cb5e
go-spec-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository PascaleBeier/hitkeep (86 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 1,705 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
design-review
Deep design review of Go codebase — naming, structure, consistency, interfaces, error handling. Scores each dimension and provides actionable fixes.
agents-md
Generate AGENTS.md files for Go, Rust, TypeScript, and Java projects. Use this skill whenever the user asks to create, scaffold, bootstrap, update, or review an AGENTS.md (or agent-instructions, CLAUDE.md, repo guide for agents) file in a codebase. Also trigger when the user says "add AGENTS.md", "make this repo…
gemtracker
Analyze Ruby gem dependencies, vulnerabilities, outdated packages, maintenance health, and insecure gem sources with the gemtracker CLI. Use when asked to audit Ruby gems, check Gemfile.lock security, review dependency health, or run gemtracker.
go-code-review
Use when reviewing Go code or checking code against community style standards. Also use proactively before submitting a Go PR or when reviewing any Go code changes, even if the user doesn't explicitly request a style review. Does not cover language-specific syntax — delegates to specialized skills.
code-review-go
Deep Go-specific code review covering goroutine lifecycle, data races, error wrapping, domain modeling, and interface design. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when Go code is detected. Invoked when reviewing Go PRs, Go code changes, or performing Go-specific quality checks.
go-idiomatic
Semantic ownership. Use when errors, context, nil or zero values, method sets, aliasing, or resource lifetimes change what a Go caller observes.