Add should - testing library with zero dependencies

[Andrei-hub11]

We want to ensure high quality of the packages. Make sure that you've checked the boxes below before sending a pull request.

• [ x] I have read the Contribution Guidelines
• [x ] I have read the Maintainers Note
• [x ] I have read the Quality Standards

Not every repository (project) will require every option, but most projects should. Check the Contribution Guidelines for details.

• [ x] The repo documentation has a pkg.go.dev link.
• [ x] The repo documentation has a coverage service link.
• [ x] The repo documentation has a goreportcard link.
• [ x] The repo has a version-numbered release and a go.mod file.
• [ x] The repo has a continuous integration process that automatically runs tests that must pass before new pull requests are merged.
• [x ] Continuous integration is used to attempt to catch issues prior to releasing this package to end-users.

Please provide some links to your package to ease the review

• [ x ] forge link (github.com, gitlab.com, etc): https://github.com/Kairum-Labs/should
• [ x] pkg.go.dev: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/Kairum-Labs/should
• [x ] goreportcard.com: https://goreportcard.com/report/github.com/Kairum-Labs/should
• [x ] coverage service link (codecov, coveralls, etc.): https://app.codecov.io/gh/Kairum-Labs/should

Pull Request content

• [ x] The package has been added to the list in alphabetical order.
• [x ] The package has an appropriate description with correct grammar.
• [ x] As far as I know, the package has not been listed here before.

Category quality

Note that new categories can be added only when there are 3 packages or more.

Packages added a long time ago might not meet the current guidelines anymore. It would be very helpful if you could check 3-5 packages above and below your submission to ensure that they also still meet the Quality Standards.

Please delete one of the following lines:

• [ x] The packages around my addition still meet the Quality Standards.

Thanks for your PR, you're awesome! 😎

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added a new testing library entry "should" (description and link) under the Testing Frameworks section in README.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Added a new public testing library entry "should" under the Testing Frameworks section in README.md; no functional or navigation changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Documentation (README) README.md	Added a new Testing Frameworks entry should with name, URL and description; no code changes.

Sequence Diagram(s)

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

• Single README documentation addition; review focuses on correctness of entry text and URL.

Poem

🐇 I hopped through lines and found a nook,

Planted a "should" inside the book.
A tiny change, polite and bright,
The README now feels just right.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding the 'should' testing library to the awesome-go list, with a key characteristic (zero dependencies) highlighted.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a9725b6 and f29b2f1.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• README.md

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
• GitHub Check: quality

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

README.md (1)

1919-1919: Remove extra indentation for consistency.

Other “back to top” anchors aren’t indented; align this one.

Apply this diff:

-  **[⬆ back to top](#contents)**
+**[⬆ back to top](#contents)**

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 56e2cfa and b618b00.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (3 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (3)

README.md

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

README.md: When modifying the Awesome list, keep categories with at least three entries
Descriptions in the Awesome list must end with a period
Avoid promotional copy; keep descriptions concise and neutral in the Awesome list
Do not remove existing list content unless removal is requested and justified

Files:

• README.md

**/*.md

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

Keep documentation in English

Files:

• README.md

{README.md,COVERAGE.md}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

Align rendered documentation (README.md, COVERAGE.md, etc.) with behavior changes in main.go or helper packages

Files:

• README.md

🧠 Learnings (2)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: elymanuba
Repo: avelino/awesome-go PR: 5762
File: README.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-08-14T23:46:18.545Z
Learning: When reviewing contributions to the awesome-go repository, maintain a relaxed and less pedantic approach. Users may find overly strict feedback about formatting, alphabetical ordering, or description tone to be unnecessary. Focus on major issues rather than minor stylistic preferences.

Learnt from: CR
Repo: avelino/awesome-go PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-10-08T00:38:13.132Z
Learning: Applies to {README.md,COVERAGE.md} : Align rendered documentation (README.md, COVERAGE.md, etc.) with behavior changes in main.go or helper packages

📚 Learning: 2025-10-08T00:38:13.132Z

Learnt from: CR
Repo: avelino/awesome-go PR: 0
File: AGENTS.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-10-08T00:38:13.132Z
Learning: Applies to {README.md,COVERAGE.md} : Align rendered documentation (README.md, COVERAGE.md, etc.) with behavior changes in main.go or helper packages

Applied to files:

• README.md

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
• GitHub Check: quality

[github-actions]

Automated Quality Checks (from CONTRIBUTING minimum standards)

• Repo: OK
• pkg.go.dev: OK
• goreportcard: OK (grade unknown)
• coverage: missing

These checks are a best-effort automation and do not replace human review.

[ccoVeille]

LGTM 👍

Some minor remarks that seems unexpected changes