jbvc/cpp-coding-standards
C++ coding standards based on the C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io). Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code to enforce modern, safe, and idiomatic practices.
86
86%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description that clearly identifies its domain, provides an explicit 'Use when' clause with relevant triggers, and is distinctive enough to avoid conflicts with other skills. Its main weakness is that it could be more specific about the concrete actions or rules it enforces (e.g., RAII, smart pointers, const-correctness, naming conventions) rather than staying at the level of 'modern, safe, and idiomatic practices.'
Suggestions
Add specific concrete capabilities such as 'Enforces RAII, smart pointer usage, const-correctness, naming conventions, and exception safety rules' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (C++ coding standards) and references the C++ Core Guidelines source, but does not list specific concrete actions beyond 'writing, reviewing, or refactoring.' It lacks enumeration of specific practices like memory safety rules, naming conventions, or RAII patterns. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (C++ coding standards based on C++ Core Guidelines enforcing modern, safe, idiomatic practices) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'C++', 'coding standards', 'C++ Core Guidelines', 'writing', 'reviewing', 'refactoring', 'modern', 'safe', 'idiomatic'. These are terms users would naturally use when seeking C++ best practices guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the specific reference to C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io) and the focus on C++ specifically. Unlikely to conflict with general coding skills or other language-specific skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a thorough, well-structured C++ coding standards reference with excellent executable code examples and a useful final checklist. Its main weakness is length — at 500+ lines it's a significant token cost, and much of the content (rule summary tables, basic C++ best practices) is knowledge Claude already possesses. The skill would benefit from being split into a concise overview SKILL.md with links to detailed per-topic reference files.
Suggestions
Split the monolithic file into a concise SKILL.md overview (cross-cutting principles + checklist + brief examples) with links to separate reference files for each major section (Functions.md, Classes.md, Concurrency.md, etc.)
Remove or significantly trim the rule summary tables — Claude already knows these C++ guidelines; focus on the concrete code examples and anti-patterns which add the most value
Trim the 'When to Use' / 'When NOT to Use' section, which states obvious context that Claude can infer
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive and well-organized, but quite lengthy (~500+ lines). Many of the rule summary tables restate what Claude already knows about C++ best practices. The DO/DON'T examples are valuable, but some sections (like the 'When to Use' / 'When NOT to Use') add little value for Claude. The cross-cutting principles section is somewhat redundant given the detailed sections that follow. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Every section provides concrete, executable C++ code examples that are copy-paste ready. The examples cover both correct patterns and anti-patterns with specific rule references. The quick reference checklist at the end provides immediately actionable verification steps. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is primarily a reference/standards skill rather than a multi-step workflow skill. The single-task nature (applying coding standards) is handled clearly with well-organized sections and a final checklist that serves as a validation checkpoint. The checklist at the end provides a clear verification workflow for code review. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is entirely monolithic — everything is in one large file with no references to external files for detailed topics. Sections like Resource Management, Concurrency, and Templates could each be their own reference files linked from a concise overview. The structure within the file is good (clear headers, tables), but the sheer volume would benefit from splitting. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (723 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents