agent-coding-standards
Universal coding standards, best practices, and patterns for TypeScript, JavaScript, React, and Node.js development.
47
Quality
35%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agent/skills/agent-coding-standards/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description identifies its technology domain but relies heavily on vague terms like 'best practices' and 'patterns' without concrete actions. The critical weakness is the complete absence of explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), making it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill over other coding-related skills.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when reviewing code style, enforcing conventions, or asking about TypeScript/React best practices'
Replace vague terms with specific actions: instead of 'best practices and patterns', list concrete capabilities like 'enforce naming conventions, apply consistent formatting, structure components'
Include natural user phrases as triggers: 'code review', 'style guide', 'how should I structure', 'naming convention', 'linting'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (coding standards) and technologies (TypeScript, JavaScript, React, Node.js), but uses vague terms like 'best practices' and 'patterns' without listing concrete actions like 'enforce naming conventions' or 'apply linting rules'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what (coding standards/best practices) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant technology keywords (TypeScript, JavaScript, React, Node.js) that users might mention, but lacks natural trigger phrases users would say like 'code review', 'style guide', 'formatting', or 'conventions'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The technology stack provides some specificity, but 'coding standards' and 'best practices' are generic enough to potentially conflict with other development-related skills covering the same languages. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially an empty index file that delegates all content to 29 sub-skills without providing any actionable guidance in the main file. While concise, it fails to give Claude any concrete instructions, examples, or workflow guidance. The sub-skill organization is flat and inconsistent, making it difficult to navigate or understand which standards apply in which situations.
Suggestions
Add a 'Quick Reference' section with the most critical coding standards inline (e.g., 2-3 key patterns with executable code examples) so Claude has immediate actionable guidance
Group the 29 sub-skills into logical categories (e.g., 'Naming Conventions', 'React Patterns', 'Testing', 'Code Smells') with brief descriptions of when each category applies
Add a workflow section explaining how to apply these standards: e.g., 'When writing new code, check X. When reviewing code, verify Y. When refactoring, prioritize Z.'
Fix inconsistent numbering in sub-skill names (items 1-4 and 27-29 have numbers, others don't) and consider whether the ordering conveys priority or is arbitrary
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is extremely lean - just a title, brief description, and a well-organized list of links to sub-skills. No unnecessary explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill body contains zero actionable content - no code examples, no concrete guidance, no executable instructions. It's purely a table of contents with no substance in the main file itself. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no workflow described. The skill provides no sequence of steps, no validation checkpoints, and no guidance on how or when to apply these standards. It's just an unordered list of topics. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill does use one-level-deep references to sub-skills, which is good. However, the organization is poor - 29 sub-skills with inconsistent naming (some numbered, some not), no categorization or grouping, and no guidance on which to consult when. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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 |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- Dokhacgiakhoa/antigravity-ide
- Commit
3395991
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.