golang-pro
Use when building Go applications requiring concurrent programming, microservices architecture, or high-performance systems. Invoke for goroutines, channels, Go generics, gRPC integration.
68
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
72%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 has strong trigger terms and clear distinctiveness for Go development, but lacks specificity about what concrete actions the skill performs. It reads more like a topic list than a capability description, telling Claude when to use it but not what it actually does (e.g., 'implements concurrent patterns', 'debugs race conditions', 'scaffolds microservices').
Suggestions
Add concrete action verbs describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Implements concurrent patterns using goroutines and channels, scaffolds gRPC services, debugs race conditions'
Restructure to lead with capabilities (what it does) before the 'Use when' clause to clearly answer both questions
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Go applications) and mentions some technical concepts (goroutines, channels, generics, gRPC), but doesn't describe concrete actions like 'implement', 'debug', or 'optimize'. It lists topics rather than specific capabilities. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Has a 'Use when' clause addressing when to invoke, but the 'what does this do' is weak - it describes contexts and topics rather than concrete actions the skill performs. The description tells when but not clearly what actions it takes. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'Go applications', 'concurrent programming', 'microservices', 'goroutines', 'channels', 'Go generics', 'gRPC'. These are terms developers naturally use when seeking Go help. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused on Go-specific features (goroutines, channels, Go generics, gRPC). The Go-specific terminology makes it unlikely to conflict with other language skills or general programming skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill demonstrates good structural organization with excellent progressive disclosure through its reference table. However, it lacks concrete executable code examples that would make it immediately actionable, and the workflow could benefit from explicit validation checkpoints given the complexity of concurrent Go programming. The role-playing framing adds unnecessary tokens.
Suggestions
Add executable code examples for key patterns (e.g., a goroutine with proper lifecycle management, error wrapping with fmt.Errorf)
Remove the role-playing framing ('You are a senior Go engineer...') - Claude doesn't need persona instructions
Add validation checkpoints to the workflow, such as 'Run golangci-lint before commit' and 'Verify no race conditions with -race before merging'
Trim the 'When to Use This Skill' section as it largely duplicates information Claude can infer from the skill description
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes some unnecessary framing ('You are a senior Go engineer with 8+ years...') and the 'When to Use This Skill' section largely restates what Claude would infer. The constraints and workflow sections are reasonably efficient but could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides good high-level guidance with specific tool names (gofmt, golangci-lint, pprof) and patterns (table-driven tests, error wrapping), but lacks executable code examples. The constraints are concrete but the workflow steps are abstract without copy-paste ready commands or code snippets. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step core workflow provides a clear sequence but lacks validation checkpoints. For a skill involving concurrent programming and production systems, there's no explicit feedback loop for race detection results or profiling outcomes before proceeding. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent use of a reference table with clear 'Load When' conditions pointing to one-level-deep reference files. The main skill serves as a concise overview with well-signaled navigation to detailed topics. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
75%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 12 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
body_examples | No examples detected (no code fences and no 'Example' wording) | Warning |
Total | 12 / 16 Passed | |
- 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.