golang-code-style
Golang code style, formatting and conventions. Use when writing code, reviewing style, configuring linters, writing comments, or establishing project standards.
91
91%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
92%
1.06xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
82%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description that clearly identifies its domain (Go/Golang style) and provides explicit trigger guidance via a 'Use when...' clause with multiple scenarios. Its main weaknesses are that the capability description could be more concrete (listing specific actions rather than categories) and some trigger terms like 'writing code' are overly broad, which could cause conflicts with other coding-related skills.
Suggestions
Replace generic triggers like 'writing code' with Go-specific ones like 'writing Go code', 'Go naming conventions', 'gofmt', 'golangci-lint', or '.go files'
Add more concrete actions to the capability portion, e.g., 'Enforces gofmt formatting, applies Go naming conventions, structures packages, configures golangci-lint'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Golang) and mentions several areas (code style, formatting, conventions), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'enforce gofmt formatting, apply naming conventions, configure golangci-lint'. The actions are more categorical than concrete. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (Golang code style, formatting and conventions) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing five trigger scenarios: writing code, reviewing style, configuring linters, writing comments, or establishing project standards. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good natural trigger terms: 'Golang', 'code style', 'formatting', 'conventions', 'linters', 'comments', 'project standards', 'reviewing style', 'writing code'. These are terms users would naturally use when seeking Go style guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The 'Golang' qualifier provides good specificity, but 'writing code' and 'project standards' are broad enough to potentially overlap with general coding skills or other language-specific style guides. The trigger 'writing code' is especially generic. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an excellent style skill that is concise, actionable, and well-organized. It provides concrete Go code examples for every rule, uses clear MUST/SHOULD language for requirements, and appropriately delegates related concerns to other skills via well-signaled cross-references. The content respects Claude's intelligence while adding genuine value through specific, opinionated style decisions.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient throughout. It assumes Claude's Go competence, avoids explaining basic concepts, and every section delivers actionable rules with minimal preamble. Code examples are tight and illustrative without unnecessary commentary. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Nearly every rule is accompanied by executable, copy-paste-ready Go code examples showing both good and bad patterns. Concrete guidance is given for line breaking, variable declarations, control flow, function design, and more — all with specific thresholds (e.g., 4+ arguments, ~120 chars, ≤4 parameters). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is primarily a style/convention skill rather than a multi-step process skill. The single-purpose rules are unambiguous and clearly sequenced within each section. The parallelizing code reviews section provides a clear workflow for the one multi-step scenario. No destructive or batch operations require validation checkpoints. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is well-structured as an overview with clear cross-references to related skills (naming, design patterns, structs/interfaces, linters) and a details reference file. References are one level deep, clearly signaled with arrows, and content is appropriately split across concerns. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- samber/cc-skills-golang
- Commit
b88f91d
- 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.