golang-popular-libraries
Recommends production-ready Golang libraries and frameworks. Apply when the user asks for library suggestions, wants to compare alternatives, or needs to choose a library for a specific task. Also apply when the AI agent is about to add a new dependency — ensures vetted, production-ready libraries are chosen.
77
73%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
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 that clearly communicates its purpose and when to apply it. It has strong trigger coverage with an explicit 'Apply when' clause covering both user-initiated and agent-initiated scenarios. The main area for improvement is adding more specific concrete actions beyond 'recommends' to better convey the depth of evaluation performed.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Golang libraries/frameworks) and the general action (recommends, compares alternatives, helps choose), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'evaluates maintenance status, checks star count, reviews API design' — it stays at a moderate level of specificity. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (recommends production-ready Golang libraries and frameworks) and 'when' (explicit 'Apply when...' clause covering user requests for suggestions, comparisons, task-specific choices, and agent dependency additions). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'library suggestions', 'compare alternatives', 'choose a library', 'add a new dependency', 'Golang', 'production-ready'. These cover multiple natural phrasings a user or agent would use when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Narrowly scoped to Golang library/framework recommendations specifically, with distinct triggers around dependency selection and library comparison. 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.
The skill is well-organized with excellent progressive disclosure and clear references to detailed catalogs. However, it reads more as a philosophy document than an actionable skill — it lacks concrete examples of how to make a recommendation (e.g., decision matrices, specific stdlib-vs-library comparisons). The guidelines are reasonable but somewhat generic and could be tightened.
Suggestions
Add 1-2 concrete recommendation examples showing the decision process, e.g., 'User needs HTTP routing → stdlib net/http handles most cases; use github.com/go-chi/chi when you need middleware composition and route groups'.
Include a brief decision checklist with explicit validation steps, e.g., 'Before recommending: verify last commit < 6 months, check license is MIT/Apache/BSD, confirm no CVEs in go.sum audit'.
Remove or condense the anti-patterns section — most items restate the guidelines above and Claude already understands these concepts.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary padding like 'Remember: The best library is often no library at all' and the persona statement. The anti-patterns section partially restates the guidelines. Some lines like 'This skill is not exhaustive' are filler. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides general guidelines and philosophy but lacks concrete examples of recommendations. There are no specific code snippets, no example decision trees (e.g., 'for HTTP routing, use stdlib net/http unless you need X, then use chi'), and no executable guidance. The actual library details are deferred to reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a numbered sequence for assessing requirements (assess → check stdlib → prioritize maturity → consider complexity → think about dependencies), but it lacks explicit validation checkpoints. For a task like recommending/adding a dependency, there's no concrete verification step like 'check go.sum for existing alternatives' or 'verify license compatibility before adding'. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with a clear overview in the main file and well-signaled one-level-deep references to stdlib.md, libraries.md, and tools.md. Cross-references to related skills are clearly listed. The external awesome-go link is also helpful. Navigation is easy and intuitive. | 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
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.