jbvc/golang-pro
Master Go 1.21+ with modern patterns, advanced concurrency, performance optimization, and production-ready microservices. Expert in the latest Go ecosystem including generics, workspaces, and cutting-edge frameworks. Use PROACTIVELY for Go development, architecture design, or performance optimization.
39
39%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
50%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description suffers from buzzword-heavy language ('Master', 'Expert', 'cutting-edge') that inflates rather than informs. It partially identifies the domain and includes a 'Use when' equivalent, but lacks concrete actions and natural trigger terms users would actually say. The self-promotional tone detracts from functional clarity needed for skill selection.
Suggestions
Replace vague qualifiers ('Master', 'Expert', 'cutting-edge') with concrete actions like 'Write, debug, and refactor Go code; design concurrent systems with goroutines and channels; build production microservices'.
Add natural trigger terms users would say: 'golang', '.go files', 'goroutines', 'channels', 'go modules', 'go test', 'go build'.
Make the 'Use when' clause more specific, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about writing Go code, debugging Go programs, optimizing Go performance, or designing Go microservice architectures'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Go development) and mentions some areas like concurrency, performance optimization, microservices, generics, and workspaces, but uses vague qualifiers like 'master', 'expert', 'cutting-edge' rather than listing concrete actions (e.g., 'write', 'debug', 'profile', 'refactor'). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is partially addressed (Go development, architecture, performance), and there is a 'Use PROACTIVELY for...' clause, but the trigger guidance is vague ('Go development, architecture design, or performance optimization') and doesn't specify concrete user scenarios or natural language triggers. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'Go', 'concurrency', 'microservices', 'generics', 'performance optimization', but misses common user terms like 'golang', '.go files', 'goroutines', 'channels', 'go modules', 'go test'. The term 'Go 1.21+' is overly specific versioning that users rarely mention. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While Go-specific, terms like 'architecture design', 'performance optimization', and 'microservices' are broad enough to overlap with general software engineering, Python, or other language-specific skills. The description doesn't carve out a sufficiently distinct niche. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a capability catalog that describes what Claude should know about Go rather than teaching it anything new or providing actionable guidance. It contains no code examples, no concrete commands, no specific patterns, and no executable workflows. The vast majority of content restates knowledge Claude already possesses about Go development, making it a poor use of context window tokens.
Suggestions
Replace the capability lists with concrete, executable code examples for the most important patterns (e.g., worker pool with graceful shutdown, gRPC service template, pprof profiling workflow)
Add a clear multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints for common tasks like 'setting up a new Go microservice' or 'profiling and optimizing a Go application'
Remove sections that describe Claude's existing knowledge (Capabilities, Knowledge Base, Behavioral Traits) and replace with project-specific conventions, preferred libraries with version pins, or organization-specific patterns
Split detailed reference material (e.g., concurrency patterns, testing strategies, deployment configs) into separate linked files and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with quick-start examples
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive lists of capabilities, knowledge bases, and behavioral traits that Claude already knows. The content reads like a resume or marketing document rather than actionable instructions. Sections like 'Capabilities', 'Knowledge Base', and 'Behavioral Traits' are almost entirely things Claude already understands about Go development. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code examples, no executable commands, no specific patterns shown. Everything is described at an abstract level ('Channel patterns: fan-in, fan-out, worker pools' without showing any). The 'Instructions' section has only 4 vague steps. 'Example Interactions' lists prompts but provides no actual responses or code. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step 'Instructions' section is extremely vague ('Choose concurrency and architecture patterns', 'Implement with testing and profiling') with no validation checkpoints, no concrete sequencing, and no feedback loops. The 'Response Approach' is similarly abstract with no actionable workflow. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline in one massive document with 10+ capability subsections that could be split into focused reference files. No navigation structure or links to deeper materials. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents