This is a strong, highly actionable skill with clear workflow sequencing and a well-defined output schema. Its main weakness is moderate verbosity—some sections are redundant (scope declaration vs assumptions) and a few rules contradict the stated assumption that golangci-lint has already run. The monolithic structure works but could benefit from splitting detailed rule catalogs into reference files.

Suggestions

Remove rules that overlap with golangci-lint (gofmt compliance, unused variables/imports) since the skill explicitly states those have already been enforced, or clarify why they're re-checked.

Remove or condense the 'Language Scope' section—Claude doesn't need to be told to ignore Python rules when validating Go code.

Consider extracting the detailed HARD/SHOULD/WARN rule catalogs into a separate RULES.md reference file to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main file's token footprint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is fairly well-structured but includes some redundancy. The 'Scope Declaration' and 'Assumptions' sections overlap (both mention golangci-lint handles formatting). The 'Language Scope' section explaining to ignore other languages is unnecessary padding. Some rules restate what golangci-lint already catches (e.g., gofmt compliance, unused variables) despite claiming to focus on what static tooling misses.	2 / 3
Actionability	Highly actionable: provides executable bash commands for input gathering, a precise JSON output schema, clearly categorized rules with concrete examples (e.g., user.GetName() → user.Name()), and explicit pass/fail criteria. The three-tier severity system (HARD/SHOULD/WARN) with clear enforcement semantics makes this copy-paste ready.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The workflow is clearly sequenced: gather changed files (with fallback order), read files, evaluate rules in listed order, categorize findings by severity, produce structured JSON output. The input section has explicit fallback steps. The pass/fail logic is unambiguous. The anti-pattern propagation section addresses a common edge case. The batch processing note for >50 files adds a validation checkpoint.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is a single monolithic file at ~200 lines. The rules sections (HARD, SHOULD, WARN) are well-organized with clear headers, but the detailed rule lists could benefit from being split into separate reference files. No bundle files are provided, so there's no progressive disclosure structure. However, the content is well-sectioned internally with clear navigation via headers.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

32%

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 identifies a clear domain (Go code validation) and references a specific standard (Effective Go), which is helpful for differentiation. However, it lacks concrete action details, natural trigger terms users would say, and critically has no 'Use when...' clause to guide skill selection. It reads more like a title than a functional description.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for Go code review, Go style checking, golang best practices, or idiomatic Go feedback.'

List specific concrete actions such as 'Checks error handling patterns, naming conventions, interface design, package organization, and concurrency idioms against Effective Go standards.'

Include common user-facing trigger terms like 'golang', 'Go best practices', 'Go code review', 'Go lint', and 'Go style guide'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (Go code) and a general action (validate against conventions), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like checking error handling patterns, naming conventions, interface design, etc.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (validate Go code against conventions) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is also quite thin, bringing it to 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms like 'Go code', 'Effective Go', and 'idiomatic conventions', but misses common user variations like 'golang', 'lint', 'code review', 'Go best practices', or 'Go style'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The mention of 'Effective Go' and 'idiomatic conventions' provides some specificity to Go style validation, but could overlap with general Go linting, code review, or Go development skills.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	9 / 11 Passed

Reviewed

20 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation