CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

golang-patterns

堅牢で効率的かつ保守可能なGoアプリケーションを構築するための慣用的なGoパターン、ベストプラクティス、規約。

57

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./docs/ja-JP/skills/golang-patterns/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The content is highly actionable with comprehensive executable Go examples and efficient, well-organized prose. Its main weaknesses are the lack of progressive disclosure (everything inlined in one file) and the absence of any multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Split the detailed reference material (concurrency, interface design, package layout) into separate files under references/ and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with one-level-deep links.

Add a short "workflow" or checklist for applying the patterns (e.g. write -> gofmt/goimports -> go vet -> go test) with an explicit validation step so multi-step usage is sequenced.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's Go knowledge (no basic-syntax explanations) and leans on code with brief labels; a few principle-section intros (e.g. "Goは巧妙さよりもシンプルさを好みます") could be trimmed, matching the efficient-with-minor-over-explanation anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready Go examples with Good/Bad comparisons across error handling, concurrency, interfaces, and packaging, plus runnable go tool commands, covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a patterns reference rather than a multi-step process, so there is no sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints; the well-organized sections aid navigation but no workflow sequence is present.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All ~670 lines are inlined in SKILL.md with no references to separate files and no bundle files present; internal section structure is good, but reference content that could be split into separate files is inlined.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

61%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 clearly communicates a Go-specific niche and what the skill provides, but it omits an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and leans on abstract categories rather than concrete actions. Adding trigger phrases and concrete verbs would raise completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring Go code, or designing Go packages/modules."

Replace abstract nouns ("patterns, best practices, conventions") with concrete verbs a user would say, such as "write idiomatic Go, wrap errors with context, design small interfaces, structure packages".

Include common synonyms/extensions users naturally say — "Golang", "Goコード", ".go" — to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the Go domain plus content categories ("慣用的なGoパターン、ベストプラクティス、規約") but these are abstract categories rather than concrete actions, matching the anchor that names domain and 1-2 items without comprehensive coverage.

3 / 5

Completeness

The description gives a clear "what" but lacks any "Use when..." trigger clause; per the judging guidelines a missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good coverage of natural terms ("Goアプリケーション", "Goパターン", "ベストプラクティス", "規約") a user would say, but missing common synonyms like Golang, "Goコード", and the .go extension.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clearly Go-specific, but the generic terms "ベストプラクティス" and "規約" create minor overlap risk with general code-quality or review skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (675 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
affaan-m/ECC
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.