jbvc/cpp-pro
Write idiomatic C++ code with modern features, RAII, smart pointers, and STL algorithms. Handles templates, move semantics, and performance optimization. Use PROACTIVELY for C++ refactoring, memory safety, or complex C++ patterns.
62
62%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%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 strong skill description that clearly identifies its domain (C++), lists specific capabilities (RAII, smart pointers, STL algorithms, templates, move semantics), and provides explicit trigger guidance ('Use PROACTIVELY for C++ refactoring, memory safety, or complex C++ patterns'). The description is concise, uses third person voice correctly, and includes natural keywords that C++ developers would use. Minor improvement could include mentioning file extensions like .cpp, .h, .hpp.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions and concepts: idiomatic C++ code, modern features, RAII, smart pointers, STL algorithms, templates, move semantics, performance optimization, refactoring, and memory safety. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (write idiomatic C++ with modern features, RAII, smart pointers, STL algorithms, templates, move semantics, performance optimization) and 'when' (explicitly states 'Use PROACTIVELY for C++ refactoring, memory safety, or complex C++ patterns'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'C++', 'smart pointers', 'RAII', 'templates', 'move semantics', 'STL', 'refactoring', 'memory safety', 'performance optimization'. These cover a wide range of terms a C++ developer would naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to C++ specifically with distinct triggers like RAII, smart pointers, STL algorithms, move semantics, and templates. Unlikely to conflict with skills for other programming languages or general coding tasks. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
7%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill content is largely a restatement of general C++ best practices that Claude already knows, with no concrete code examples, specific patterns, or executable guidance. The boilerplate sections add no value, and the content reads more like a persona description than an actionable skill. The single reference to an external playbook is the only structural positive.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract 'Focus Areas' and 'Approach' lists with concrete, executable code examples showing specific modern C++ patterns (e.g., a before/after refactoring from raw pointers to unique_ptr, or a template concept example).
Remove the generic boilerplate instructions ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs', 'Apply relevant best practices') and the tautological 'Use/Do not use' sections — they waste tokens on things Claude already knows.
Add a concrete workflow for common tasks like 'Refactoring legacy C++ code' with explicit steps: identify raw pointers → replace with smart pointers → run AddressSanitizer → verify → commit, including actual commands.
Expand the reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' by listing what specific topics it covers, and consider adding references for each focus area (e.g., 'For concurrency patterns, see resources/concurrency.md').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is padded with generic boilerplate ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs', 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes') and lists concepts Claude already knows well (what RAII is, what smart pointers are, what STL algorithms are). The 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' sections are tautological. Much of this is a restatement of the skill description rather than adding new, specific knowledge. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There are no concrete code examples, no executable commands, no specific patterns or anti-patterns demonstrated. The content is entirely abstract guidance like 'Prefer stack allocation and RAII' and 'Use smart pointers when heap allocation is necessary' — things Claude already knows and that provide no copy-paste-ready value. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Approach' section lists general principles rather than a sequenced workflow. There are no validation checkpoints, no feedback loops, and no clear multi-step process for tasks like refactoring or performance optimization. The numbered list is a set of preferences, not actionable steps. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | There is a reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' for detailed examples, which is a reasonable one-level-deep reference. However, the main content itself is poorly organized — it mixes role description, focus areas, approach, and output expectations without clear hierarchy or navigation to more detailed resources for each topic. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 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 |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents