go-grpc
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Implement or review Go RPC contracts, Protobuf evolution, interceptors, status, deadlines, and streams.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- eduardo-sl/go-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- eduardo-sl/go-agent-skills★ 85same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- go-buildSkill
- go-concurrencySkill
- go-dataSkill
- go-debuggingSkill
- go-designSkill
- go-httpSkill
- go-idiomaticSkill
- go-implementSkill
- go-integrationsSkill
- go-integration-testingSkill
- go-observabilitySkill
- go-performanceSkill
- go-securitySkill
- go-serviceSkill
- go-testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
When schemas change, preserve the selected protobuf edition, generated API, and generation tools.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Go gRPC
Contract. Trace the affected RPC from schema through registration and interceptors to the status, metadata, and messages the caller observes. Honor requirements and preserve settled choices outside the requested change.
When schemas change, preserve the selected protobuf edition, generated API, and generation tools. Change schema sources and regenerate; never patch generated code. Evolve field identity and presence deliberately, reserve removed identifiers, and check compatibility with existing clients. A successfully decoded message still needs application validation.
Translate application failures into intentional status codes and safe details at the transport boundary. Distinguish unary and streaming interceptor coverage. Treat incoming metadata as untrusted; propagate only appropriate values, and do not mutate metadata shared with a context.
Reuse client connections and established middleware. Use client construction appropriate to the installed grpc-go API; connection readiness cannot guarantee the next RPC succeeds. Propagate deadlines and cancellation into downstream work. Retry only safely repeatable operations within the remaining budget; a deadline error does not establish that a remote write failed.
For streams, give send, receive, and termination explicit owners. Respect flow control, bound application buffering, and serialize each direction's operations. Half-closing sends does not observe terminal status. Receive the final outcome or cancel abandoned calls and join their goroutines.
For review-only work, report contract risks and the smallest justified change without editing. For implementation, test the affected property: schema compatibility with the existing generation/compatibility checks; status, interceptors, cancellation, or stream completion through an RPC. Reuse an in-process RPC harness when it includes the mechanism; do not claim it proves deployment transport behavior. Address bounded graceful draining and forced-stop fallback when changing service shutdown, not for every RPC edit.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.