golang-popular-libraries
Recommends production-ready Golang libraries and frameworks. Apply when the user explicitly asks for library suggestions, wants to compare alternatives, needs to choose a library for a specific task, or when a new dependency is being added to the project.
61
73%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/golang-popular-libraries/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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 well-crafted description with strong trigger terms and explicit 'when' guidance that clearly delineates its purpose. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions performed (e.g., does it provide benchmarks, compatibility notes, pros/cons comparisons?). Overall, it would perform well in a multi-skill selection scenario.
Suggestions
Expand the capability description with more concrete actions, e.g., 'Recommends production-ready Golang libraries and frameworks, provides pros/cons comparisons, evaluates maintenance status, and suggests alternatives.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Golang libraries and frameworks) and the core action (recommends), but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions beyond recommending. It mentions comparing alternatives and choosing libraries, which adds some specificity, but these are still fairly general. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (recommends production-ready Golang libraries and frameworks) and 'when' (explicit 'Apply when...' clause listing four distinct trigger scenarios including asking for suggestions, comparing alternatives, choosing for a task, or adding a dependency). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'library suggestions', 'compare alternatives', 'choose a library', 'new dependency', 'Golang'. These cover common variations of how a user would phrase requests for library recommendations. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to Golang library/framework recommendations specifically, which is a distinct niche. The combination of 'Golang' + 'library recommendations' makes it unlikely to conflict with general coding skills or other language-specific skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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 is well-organized as a hub document with good progressive disclosure to reference files and related skills. However, the body content is repetitive across its sections (Core Philosophy, General Guidelines, and Anti-Patterns all reinforce the same stdlib-first message) and lacks concrete, actionable examples such as a sample recommendation format, decision criteria with thresholds, or specific commands for evaluating library health.
Suggestions
Consolidate 'Core Philosophy', 'General Guidelines', and 'Anti-Patterns' into a single concise section to eliminate redundant stdlib-first and simplicity messaging.
Add a concrete recommendation template or example showing the expected output format (e.g., library name, why it's recommended over alternatives, maintenance status, license).
Include specific actionable checks for evaluating library health, such as 'check last commit date on GitHub', 'verify go.sum dependency count', or a sample `go list -m all | wc -l` command to assess dependency footprint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary padding. The 'Core Philosophy' and 'General Guidelines' sections overlap significantly (both emphasize stdlib-first, simplicity, maturity). The 'Anti-Patterns to Avoid' section largely restates the guidelines in negative form. The persona line and closing reminder ('The best library is often no library at all') are redundant given the repeated stdlib-first messaging. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides directional guidance (assess requirements, check stdlib, prioritize maturity) but lacks concrete examples. There are no specific library recommendations inline, no example recommendation format, and no decision-tree or comparison template. The actual actionable content is deferred to reference files which were not provided for evaluation. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a loose sequence implied (assess requirements → check stdlib → evaluate maturity → consider complexity → think about dependencies), but it lacks explicit validation checkpoints. For a recommendation skill, there's no checklist for verifying a library's suitability (e.g., check last commit date, check license, check dependency count) with concrete thresholds or commands. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is well-structured as an overview with clear one-level-deep references to stdlib.md, libraries.md, and tools.md, plus cross-references to related skills. Navigation is clearly signaled with descriptive labels. The external awesome-go link provides a fallback for uncovered cases. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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.