golang-patterns

构建健壮、高效且可维护 Go 应用程序的惯用法（Idiomatic Go）、最佳实践与规范。

Quality

57%

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 ./docs/ja-JP/skills/golang-patterns/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a strong, highly actionable catalog of idiomatic Go patterns with real code and toolchain guidance, but it is a monolithic reference that should be split into progressive reference files and lacks an explicit validated workflow.

Suggestions

Move detailed sections (concurrency patterns, linter config, anti-patterns) into reference files and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with one-level-deep links.

Trim redundant Good/Bad pairs and generic aphorisms to reduce token load when the skill activates.

For code-review/refactoring usage, add a short sequenced workflow with a validation checkpoint (e.g., run go vet/test/golangci-lint and only proceed on pass).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient code with minimal explanatory prose, but at ~670 lines it is a large monolithic load with some redundancy across Good/Bad pairs and generic aphorisms ('清晰好过巧妙') that could be tightened or split out.	2 / 3
Actionability	It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready Go code, concrete toolchain commands (go build/test/vet, golangci-lint), and a specific .golangci.yml config, matching the highest anchor.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Content is organized into clear topical sections with a 'when to enable' list, but it is a pattern catalog rather than a sequenced multi-step workflow, with no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for risky operations.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized, but the entire reference (advanced concurrency patterns, linter config, anti-patterns) is inline in one ~670-line SKILL.md with no bundle files or one-level-deep references to split out detail.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 cleanly states what the skill covers for Go development in third person, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and relies on somewhat generic quality language, limiting its completeness and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers such as writing, reviewing, refactoring, or designing Go code/packages.

Replace abstract quality terms (健壮/高效/可维护) with concrete capabilities (e.g., 'review Go code, structure packages, handle errors and concurrency').

Include common user terms like 'Golang' and 'Go code review' alongside 'Idiomatic Go' to broaden trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Go 应用程序') and the nature of the content ('惯用法/最佳实践/规范') but lists qualities (健壮、高效、可维护) rather than concrete actions like 'review', 'refactor', or 'design packages', so it stops at naming domain and some scope.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers 'what' (idioms, best practices, standards for robust Go apps) but has no 'Use when…' or equivalent trigger clause, capping completeness at 2 per the rubric guideline.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms ('Go 应用程序', 'Idiomatic Go') a developer would say, but misses common variations such as 'Golang', 'Go code', or 'Go code review', so coverage is partial.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The explicit 'Go'/'Idiomatic Go' anchoring gives it a niche, but the generic 'best practices and standards for building robust, efficient, maintainable applications' phrasing could overlap with general coding/architecture skills, and the lack of distinct triggers keeps it at 2.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (674 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: xu-xiang/everything-claude-code-zh
Path: docs/ja-JP/skills/golang-patterns/SKILL.md
Commit: dfbf946

Reviewed: 28 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.