Like many other non-therian mammals, gobiocontids retained classical mammalian synapomorphies like epipubic bones (and likely the associated reproductive constrictions), venomous spurs and sprawling limbs.

[6] Nonetheless, it's clear that most if not all gobiconodontids were primarily carnivorous, given the presence of long, sharp canines and incisors,[note 1] premolars with trenchant main cusps that were well suited to grasp and pierce prey, strong development of the mandibular abductor musculature, bone crushing ability in at least some species and several other features.

[9] Competition between both groups is unattested, but in Asia the Early Cretaceous gobiconodontid diversity is replaced entirely by a deltatheroidean one, while in North America Nanocuris appears after the absence of Gobiconodon and other larger eutriconodonts.

[10] At least Spinolestes had xenarthrous vertebrae and osseous scutes, convergent to those of modern xenarthrans and to a lesser extent the hero shrew.

This genus may have displayed an ecological role similar to that of modern anteaters, pangolins, echidnas, aardvark, aardwolf and numbat, being the second known Mesozoic mammal after Fruitafossor to have done so.