CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

go-review

Go code review guidelines for the Cog codebase

61

Quality

71%

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 ./.opencode/skills/go-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

93%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 a tight, highly actionable review checklist that assumes expertise and wastes no tokens, with clean section structure and no external references needed. Its only gap is the absence of an explicit review workflow/ordering.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, naming linters, paths, and libraries without explaining what they are or padding with concepts Claude already knows.

5 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: exact linters to skip, exact paths (pkg/cli/, pkg/errors.CodedError), exact libraries (testify/require, testify/assert), and specific anti-patterns like fmt.Errorf without %w.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

As a simple single-purpose review skill it is well-organized by category with a clear skip-vs-look-for split, but it lacks an explicit review sequence or prioritization checkpoints, leaving it just below the top anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with no external bundle files needed; well-organized into clearly headed sections, which qualifies for a top score per the simple-skill guidance.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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 names its niche clearly but lists no concrete actions and omits any trigger/"Use when" guidance, leaving it below its potential. It is distinct but under-specified for discovery.

Suggestions

Add 2-3 concrete actions, e.g. "Flags error-handling, import-grouping, concurrency, and Docker/SDK issues that linters miss."

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when reviewing Go code in the Cog (github.com/replicate/cog) codebase."

Include natural synonyms like "golang" and "review my Go code" to improve trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("Go code review guidelines", "Cog codebase") but lists no concrete review actions in the description itself, matching the anchor for naming the domain with minimal actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear "what" (Go code review guidelines) but no "when" / "Use when..." clause at all, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Go code review" is a natural user phrase, but it lacks common synonyms ("golang", "review my code") and file/type variations, matching the anchor for some relevant keywords missing common variations.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Tied to a specific language (Go) and codebase (Cog) gives it a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against generic review skills.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
replicate/cog
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.