[
  {
    "id": "EXC0001",
    "pattern": "Error return value of .((os\\.)?std(out|err)\\..*|.*Close|.*Flush|os\\.Remove(All)?|.*print(f|ln)?|os\\.(Un)?Setenv). is not checked",
    "linter": "errcheck",
    "why": "Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0002",
    "pattern": "(comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)",
    "linter": "golint",
    "why": "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0003",
    "pattern": "func name will be used as test\\.Test.* by other packages, and that stutters; consider calling this",
    "linter": "golint",
    "why": "False positive when tests are defined in package 'test'."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0004",
    "pattern": "(possible misuse of unsafe.Pointer|should have signature)",
    "linter": "govet",
    "why": "Common false positives."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0005",
    "pattern": "SA4011",
    "linter": "staticcheck",
    "why": "Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0006",
    "pattern": "G103: Use of unsafe calls should be audited",
    "linter": "gosec",
    "why": "Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0007",
    "pattern": "G204: Subprocess launched with variable",
    "linter": "gosec",
    "why": "Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0008",
    "pattern": "G104",
    "linter": "gosec",
    "why": "Duplicated errcheck checks."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0009",
    "pattern": "(G301|G302|G307): Expect (directory permissions to be 0750|file permissions to be 0600) or less",
    "linter": "gosec",
    "why": "Too many issues in popular repos."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0010",
    "pattern": "G304: Potential file inclusion via variable",
    "linter": "gosec",
    "why": "False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0011",
    "pattern": "(ST1000|ST1020|ST1021|ST1022)",
    "linter": "stylecheck",
    "why": "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0012",
    "pattern": "exported (.+) should have comment( \\(or a comment on this block\\))? or be unexported",
    "linter": "revive",
    "why": "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0013",
    "pattern": "package comment should be of the form \"(.+)...\"",
    "linter": "revive",
    "why": "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0014",
    "pattern": "comment on exported (.+) should be of the form \"(.+)...\"",
    "linter": "revive",
    "why": "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments."
  },
  {
    "id": "EXC0015",
    "pattern": "should have a package comment",
    "linter": "revive",
    "why": "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments."
  }
]