go-review

Senior Go code reviewer for comprehensive code reviews focused on correctness, security, performance, and maintainability. Use when reviewing Go code for bugs, best practices, and production readiness.

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/dev-skills/skills/go-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

56%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 body is highly actionable with concrete code, templates, and checklists, and the task routing is clear. Its main weakness is verbosity — large tutorial sections re-explain standard Go knowledge Claude already has — and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure to split that bulk into reference files.

Suggestions

Move the "Common Go Issues to Watch For" tutorial and the full review checklists into reference files (e.g. references/common-issues.md, references/checklist.md) and link to them from SKILL.md to cut inline tokens and improve progressive_disclosure.

Trim or remove the "Feedback Style" section and the "Your Role"/"Review Principles" prose that restates what Claude already knows about reviewing code, keeping only Go-specific guidance.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the review workflow (e.g. re-read changed lines after proposing fixes, or confirm each finding against the actual code location) before issuing the final verdict.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Noticeably verbose: the "Common Go Issues to Watch For" section re-teaches concepts Claude already knows (race conditions, SQL injection, resource leaks, floating-point currency, context propagation) with full code tutorials, and the "Feedback Style" section pads with generic advice ("Be Respectful", "Be Specific") Claude does not need.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready Go code examples for common issues, a structured review template, explicit commands (git diff --staged), and detailed checklists; minor gaps are illustrative placeholders in the template rather than missing detail.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The "Task Execution" section cleanly branches on $ARGUMENTS (file/dir, --security, --performance, --pr, staged default) and a numbered review process follows, giving a clear sequence; however no explicit validation/review checkpoint closes the loop before issuing the verdict.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The file is well-sectioned with headers but is a ~340-line monolith with no bundle files and no external references; content like the common-issues tutorial and full checklists could live in separate reference files rather than inline.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 is strong: it explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it, scoped tightly to Go with concrete focus areas and natural trigger terms. The only minor gap is the absence of synonyms like "golang" or ".go".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (Go code review) and enumerates several specific focus areas ("correctness, security, performance, and maintainability"; "bugs, best practices, and production readiness"), though the core action reduces to a single "comprehensive code reviews" rather than many distinct actions.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ("Senior Go code reviewer for comprehensive code reviews focused on correctness, security, performance, and maintainability") and when ("Use when reviewing Go code for bugs, best practices, and production readiness") with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms a user would say are present ("Go code", "code reviews", "bugs", "best practices", "production readiness"), but common synonyms/extensions like "golang" or ".go" files are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clearly scoped to Go with distinct triggers ("Senior Go code reviewer", "reviewing Go code"), giving it a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against generic code-review skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 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	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: rikdc/ai-skills
Path: plugins/dev-skills/skills/go-review/SKILL.md
Commit: cd15778

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.