The description identifies a clear domain (Go code validation) and references authoritative standards (Effective Go), but lacks explicit trigger guidance and specific concrete actions. The absence of a 'Use when...' clause significantly weakens Claude's ability to know when to select this skill over others.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'Go code review', 'golang conventions', 'idiomatic Go', 'Go best practices', or 'Effective Go'

List specific validation actions such as 'check naming conventions, verify error handling patterns, review interface design, validate package structure'

Include common user phrasings and file extensions like 'golang', '.go files', 'Go style guide', 'Go linting'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (Go code) and a general action (validate against conventions), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check naming conventions, verify error handling patterns, review package organization'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (validate Go code) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes 'Go code', 'Effective Go', and 'idiomatic conventions' which are relevant but misses common variations users might say like 'golang', 'Go best practices', 'Go style', 'Go linting', or 'code review'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Specific to Go language which helps distinguish it, but 'validate code against conventions' could overlap with general code review or linting skills without clearer boundaries.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a strong, actionable skill with clear workflow and concrete guidance. The rules are specific and well-categorized with severity levels. Minor weaknesses include some verbosity in scope declarations and the monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed rule sets into referenced files.

Suggestions

Consider moving the detailed HARD RULES and STRONG CONVENTIONS sections to a separate RULES.md file, keeping only a summary in the main skill

Remove redundant scope declarations (e.g., 'This validator MUST NOT report on' could be condensed or moved to a separate exclusions section)

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeated emphasis on what NOT to do, multiple restatements of scope). The rules themselves are well-organized but could be tighter.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable bash commands for input, specific rules with clear examples (e.g., 'user.GetName() → user.Name()'), and an exact JSON output schema that is copy-paste ready.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequential workflow: get changed files → read files → evaluate rules in order → categorize findings → output JSON. Includes fallback commands and batch handling for edge cases.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-structured with clear sections, but everything is inline in one file. The references section could link to external docs more effectively, and some rule categories could be split into separate reference files for a skill this comprehensive.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 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

2 months ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation