Skill: anderskev/review-go (version 1.0.1)

--- description: Comprehensive Go backend code review with optional parallel agents name: review-go disable-model-invocation: true --- # Go Backend Code Review ## Arguments - `--parallel`: Spawn specialized subagents per technology area - Path: Target directory (default: current working directory) ## Step 1: Identify Changed Files ```bash git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '\.go$' ``` **Pass condition:** If this prints nothing, state **No Go files in this diff** in the summary and **skip Steps 2–6**; do not invent findings for out-of-scope files. ## Step 2: Detect Technologies ```bash # Detect BubbleTea TUI grep -r "charmbracelet/bubbletea\|tea\.Model\|tea\.Cmd" --include="*.go" -l | head -3 # Detect Wish SSH grep -r "charmbracelet/wish\|ssh\.Session\|wish\.Middleware" --include="*.go" -l | head -3 # Detect Prometheus grep -r "prometheus/client_golang\|promauto\|prometheus\.Counter" --include="*.go" -l | head -3 # Detect ZeroLog grep -r "rs/zerolog\|zerolog\.Logger" --include="*.go" -l | head -3 # Check for test files git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '_test\.go$' ``` ## Step 3: Load Verification Protocol Load `beagle-go:review-verification-protocol` skill and keep its checklist in mind throughout the review. ## Step 4: Load Skills Use the `Skill` tool to load each applicable skill (e.g., `Skill(skill: "beagle-go:go-code-review")`). **Always load:** - `beagle-go:go-code-review` **Conditionally load based on detection:** | Condition | Skill | |-----------|-------| | Test files changed | `beagle-go:go-testing-code-review` | | BubbleTea detected | `beagle-go:bubbletea-code-review` | | Wish SSH detected | `beagle-go:wish-ssh-code-review` | | Prometheus detected | `beagle-go:prometheus-go-code-review` | **Pass before Step 5:** You have loaded `beagle-go:go-code-review` (and Step 3 verification protocol). Load a **conditional** skill only when its row applies: `_test.go` in Step 1 diff → testing skill; BubbleTea/Wish/Prometheus skill only if the matching Step 2 `grep` returned at least one path (if `grep` returned nothing, do **not** load that skill). ## Step 5: Review **Sequential (default):** 1. Load applicable skills 2. Review Go quality issues first (error handling, concurrency, interfaces) 3. Review detected technology areas 4. Consolidate findings **Parallel (--parallel flag):** 1. Detect all technologies upfront 2. Spawn one subagent per technology area with `Task` tool 3. Each agent loads its skill and reviews its domain 4. Wait for all agents 5. Consolidate findings ## Step 6: Verify Findings Before reporting any issue: 1. Re-read the actual code (not just diff context) 2. For "unused" claims - did you search all references? 3. For "missing" claims - did you check framework/parent handling? 4. For syntax issues - did you verify against current version docs? 5. Remove any findings that are style preferences, not actual issues **Hard gates before listing any Critical or Major issue** (Informational may be lighter): 1. **Read-depth:** You opened the file on disk and read at least the enclosing function or block (diff-only or excerpt-only reading is not enough). 2. **Unused / dead code:** You ran a reference search (`rg`/IDE) and noted the result in the finding (e.g. no references outside tests), or you are not claiming unused symbols. 3. **“Missing” behavior:** You checked callers, framework wiring, or docs for the claimed gap, or you downgraded/dropped the item. ## Step 7: Review Convergence ### Single-Pass Completeness You MUST report ALL issues across ALL categories (style, logic, types, tests, security, performance) in a single review pass. Do not hold back issues for later rounds. Before submitting findings, ask yourself: - "If all my recommended fixes are applied, will I find NEW issues in the fixed code?" - "Am I requesting new code (tests, types, modules) that will itself need review?" If yes to either: include those anticipated downstream issues NOW, in this review, so the author can address everything at once. ### Scope Rules - Review ONLY the code in the diff and directly related existing code - Do NOT request new features, test infrastructure, or architectural changes that didn't exist before the diff - If test coverage is missing, flag it as ONE Minor issue ("Missing test coverage for X, Y, Z") — do NOT specify implementation details like mock libraries, behaviour extraction, or dependency injection patterns that would introduce substantial new code - Typespecs, documentation, and naming issues are Minor unless they affect public API contracts - Do NOT request adding new dependencies (e.g. Mox, testing libraries, linter plugins) ### Fix Complexity Budget Fixes to existing code should be flagged at their real severity regardless of size. However, requests for **net-new code that didn't exist before the diff** must be classified as Informational: - Adding a new dependency (e.g. Mox, a linter plugin) - Creating entirely new modules, files, or test suites - Extracting new behaviours, protocols, or abstractions These are improvement suggestions for the author to consider in future work, not review blockers. ### Iteration Policy If this is a re-review after fixes were applied: - ONLY verify that previously flagged issues were addressed correctly - Do NOT introduce new findings unrelated to the previous review's issues - Accept Minor/Nice-to-Have issues that weren't fixed — do not re-flag them - The goal of re-review is VERIFICATION, not discovery ## Output Format ```markdown ## Review Summary [1-2 sentence overview of findings] ## Issues ### Critical (Blocking) 1. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE - Issue: Description of what's wrong - Why: Why this matters (bug, race condition, resource leak, security) - Fix: Specific recommended fix ### Major (Should Fix) 2. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE - Issue: ... - Why: ... - Fix: ... ### Minor (Nice to Have) N. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE - Issue: ... - Why: ... - Fix: ... ### Informational (For Awareness) N. [FILE:LINE] SUGGESTION_TITLE - Suggestion: ... - Rationale: ... ## Good Patterns - [FILE:LINE] Pattern description (preserve this) ## Verdict Ready: Yes | No | With fixes 1-N (Critical/Major only; Minor items are acceptable) Rationale: [1-2 sentences] ``` ## Post-Fix Verification After fixes are applied, run: ```bash go build ./... go vet ./... golangci-lint run go test -v -race ./... ``` All checks must pass before approval. ## Rules - Load skills BEFORE reviewing (not after) - Number every issue sequentially (1, 2, 3...) - Include FILE:LINE for each issue - Separate Issue/Why/Fix clearly - Categorize by actual severity - Check for race conditions with `-race` flag - Run verification after fixes - Report ALL issues in a single pass — do not hold back findings for later iterations - Re-reviews verify previous fixes ONLY — no new discovery - Requests for net-new code (new modules, dependencies, test suites) are Informational, not blocking - The Verdict ignores Minor and Informational items — only Critical and Major block approval


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)