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。

51

Quality

56%

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

65%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.

A well-organized, code-dense catalog of idiomatic Go patterns with strong Good/Bad contrasts and real tooling commands. Its main weaknesses are the absence of any workflow sequencing and the monolithic single-file structure, with everything inlined where reference files would be appropriate.

Suggestions

Split large topic blocks (concurrency patterns, project layout, lint configuration, anti-patterns) into references/*.md files and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled links.

Add a short ordered workflow or checklist (e.g. 'When reviewing Go code, check: error wrapping, goroutine leaks, receiver consistency...') to sequence the patterns into a task.

Trim examples that re-teach standard-library knowledge (io.Reader/io.Writer definitions, the bytes.Buffer zero-value demo) to reduce token cost without losing value.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and code-dominant with almost no padded prose, but includes a few explanations Claude doesn't need — it redefines standard-library interfaces (io.Reader/io.Writer), shows a three-variant join example, and demos bytes.Buffer's zero value — matching the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Nearly every section provides concrete, executable Go code plus real commands (go vet, golangci-lint run) and a complete .golangci.yml, but small placeholders (process(job), fetch(url), '// Process...') keep it just short of fully copy-paste-ready, matching anchor 4.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a pattern reference rather than a sequential workflow: per-topic guidance is unambiguous via Good/Bad contrasts, but no process or checklist sequences the patterns into a task (e.g. a review checklist or ordered steps), and no validation checkpoints exist. No destructive/batch operations, so the cap is irrelevant; this sits at anchor 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the entire ~675-line catalog — including large blocks like concurrency patterns, project layout, and lint config that clearly belong in separate reference files — is inlined in SKILL.md. Section headers give good structure, matching anchor 3 ('content that should be separate is inline') rather than 4, which requires actual file separation.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 identifies the Go niche but is a noun-phrase declaration rather than a capability-plus-trigger statement. It lacks concrete actions and any 'use when' guidance, capping both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add explicit actions to the description, e.g. 'Write, review, and refactor idiomatic Go code' instead of listing only noun categories.

Append a 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when writing or reviewing Go code, designing Go packages, or when the user mentions Go/Golang.'

Include natural trigger synonyms such as 'Golang' and '.go files' so the skill matches how users actually phrase Go requests.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('慣用的なGoパターン、ベストプラクティス、規約' for 'Goアプリケーション') but lists only noun categories and adjectives ('堅牢で効率的かつ保守可能な'); no concrete actions like write, review, or refactor appear, matching the 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' anchor.

2 / 5

Completeness

A clear 'what' is present (idiomatic Go patterns, best practices, conventions) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or any trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3. Not 4 because both what and when are required.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant keywords users would say ('Go', 'Goパターン', 'ベストプラクティス') but misses common variations and synonyms such as 'Golang', '.go', or 'Goコードのレビュー', matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Go' is stated twice, giving a clear language niche with mostly distinct triggers, but the generic terms 'パターン' and 'ベストプラクティス' leave minor overlap risk with general coding-standards skills, matching the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor rather than the fully distinct anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 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.