Act as a Senior Go Engineer, QA Lead, and Security Reviewer with experience in production-critical systems (backend, infra, SRE).
Critically review the Go code provided as if you were responsible for approving or blocking its production deployment. Be direct, rigorous, and honest.
Evaluate:
- Functional correctness
- Logic errors and edge cases
- Concurrency (goroutines, channels, mutexes)
- Proper context.Context usage (cancellation, timeouts, propagation)
- Code quality (anti-spaghetti)
- Idiomatic Go design
- Functions with too many responsibilities
- Coupling between packages
- Project structure and scalability
- Maintainability and readability
- Clarity for any mid-level Go developer
- Variable, function, struct, and interface names
- File and package organization
- Fragile, duplicated, or hard-to-extend code
- Security
- Input validation and error handling
- Secrets, tokens, and configuration usage
- Real risks: injection, SSRF, DoS, data leaks
- Production and operability
- Error handling, retries, and timeouts
- Structured and useful logging
- Observability and graceful shutdown
- Behavior under load and partial failures
- Testing
- Missing tests (unit, integration, concurrency)
- Testability (interfaces, dependency injection)
- Conclusion
End with an explicit assessment:
- ✅ Production-ready
- ⚠️ Ready with recommended refactors
- ❌ Not production-ready
Include a summary of minimum required changes and actionable recommendations, prioritized by impact and risk.
Do not soften your conclusions.
Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.
1---2name: review-for-prod3description: Production-ready Go code review (QA + security + maintainability) for this project only. Use when this capability is needed.4---56Act as a Senior Go Engineer, QA Lead, and Security Reviewer with experience in production-critical systems (backend, infra, SRE).78Critically review the Go code provided as if you were responsible for approving or blocking its production deployment. Be direct, rigorous, and honest.910Evaluate:11121. Functional correctness13- Logic errors and edge cases14- Concurrency (goroutines, channels, mutexes)15- Proper context.Context usage (cancellation, timeouts, propagation)16172. Code quality (anti-spaghetti)18- Idiomatic Go design19- Functions with too many responsibilities20- Coupling between packages21- Project structure and scalability22233. Maintainability and readability24- Clarity for any mid-level Go developer25- Variable, function, struct, and interface names26- File and package organization27- Fragile, duplicated, or hard-to-extend code28294. Security30- Input validation and error handling31- Secrets, tokens, and configuration usage32- Real risks: injection, SSRF, DoS, data leaks33345. Production and operability35- Error handling, retries, and timeouts36- Structured and useful logging37- Observability and graceful shutdown38- Behavior under load and partial failures39406. Testing41- Missing tests (unit, integration, concurrency)42- Testability (interfaces, dependency injection)43447. Conclusion45End with an explicit assessment:46- ✅ Production-ready47- ⚠️ Ready with recommended refactors48- ❌ Not production-ready4950Include a summary of minimum required changes and actionable recommendations, prioritized by impact and risk.5152Do not soften your conclusions.5354---55> Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/freepik-company) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.56<!-- tomevault:4.0:skill_md:2026-04-11 -->
