golang-documentation
Comprehensive documentation guide for Golang projects, covering godoc comments, README, CONTRIBUTING, CHANGELOG, Go Playground, Example tests, API docs, and llms.txt. Use when writing or reviewing doc comments, documentation, adding code examples, setting up doc sites, or discussing documentation best practices. Triggers for both libraries and applications/CLIs.
73
92%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%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 strong skill description that clearly defines its scope (Go documentation), lists specific artifacts and actions, and provides explicit trigger guidance. It uses third-person voice appropriately and covers both the 'what' and 'when' dimensions well. The inclusion of Go-specific terminology like 'godoc', 'Go Playground', and 'Example tests' makes it highly distinctive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions and artifacts: godoc comments, README, CONTRIBUTING, CHANGELOG, Go Playground, Example tests, API docs, and llms.txt. These are clearly defined documentation types rather than vague references. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (comprehensive documentation guide covering godoc comments, README, CONTRIBUTING, CHANGELOG, etc.) and when ('Use when writing or reviewing doc comments, documentation, adding code examples, setting up doc sites, or discussing documentation best practices'). Explicit trigger guidance is present. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'doc comments', 'documentation', 'code examples', 'doc sites', 'documentation best practices', 'godoc', 'README', 'CONTRIBUTING', 'CHANGELOG', 'libraries', 'applications/CLIs'. Good coverage of terms a Go developer would naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to Golang project documentation specifically, with distinct triggers like 'godoc', 'Go Playground', 'Example tests', and 'llms.txt'. The Go-specific terminology and documentation artifact types make it unlikely to conflict with general documentation or other language-specific skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured skill that provides a comprehensive Go documentation workflow with clear sequencing, concrete examples, and excellent progressive disclosure to reference files. The main weakness is moderate verbosity in the Writing Principles section and persona/mode preamble, which explain concepts Claude already understands about good technical writing. The actionability is excellent with real code examples, templated badges, and specific commands throughout.
Suggestions
Trim the Writing Principles section significantly — Claude already knows not to use marketing language or hollow transitions; reduce to a compact list of Go-specific doc conventions only.
Remove or condense the persona and modes preamble — these add ~10 lines of overhead that don't provide Go-specific actionable guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is generally well-structured but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., 'Good documentation makes code discoverable, understandable, and maintainable', the Writing Principles section rehashes what Claude already knows about good writing). The persona description and mode definitions add overhead. However, most content is substantive and the tables/checklists are efficient. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, executable examples throughout — the CalculateDiscount doc comment is a complete, copy-paste-ready example, badge markdown is templated with placeholders, installation commands are specific, and the README structure gives an exact section order. The checklist table is immediately actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 10-step sequential workflow is clearly numbered and ordered by priority. Step 1 (detect project type) gates subsequent steps, the checklist in Step 2 provides a clear priority matrix, and the parallelization guidance gives explicit constraints (up to 5 sub-agents). The workflow includes validation through review mode and cross-references to detailed guides for each step. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill excellently uses progressive disclosure — the main file provides concise overviews and actionable summaries for each step, then points to one-level-deep references (./references/library.md, ./references/code-comments.md, ./references/project-docs.md, ./references/application.md) and templates (./assets/templates/README.md, ./assets/templates/CHANGELOG.md). Navigation is clearly signaled with bold links and consistent formatting. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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
8c7e016
- 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.