clean-code
Pragmatic coding standards - concise, direct, no over-engineering, no unnecessary comments
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:Dokhacgiakhoa/antigravity-ide --skill clean-code60
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
0%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 description fails on all dimensions by describing abstract principles rather than concrete capabilities. It reads more like a philosophy statement than a skill description, providing no actionable guidance for when Claude should select this skill over others. Without specific actions, trigger terms, or explicit usage conditions, this skill would be nearly impossible to correctly match to user requests.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions this skill enables (e.g., 'Writes clean, minimal code. Reviews code for unnecessary complexity. Removes redundant comments and abstractions.')
Include a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms (e.g., 'Use when user asks for code review, refactoring, simplifying code, or mentions clean code, minimal code, or YAGNI principles.')
Narrow the scope to a specific context to reduce conflict risk (e.g., specify if this applies to code generation, code review, refactoring, or a particular language/framework).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language like 'pragmatic coding standards' and 'no over-engineering' without listing any concrete actions Claude would perform. It describes qualities/principles rather than specific capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Missing both 'what' (specific actions) and 'when' (explicit triggers). There is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains no natural keywords users would say when requesting help. Terms like 'pragmatic' and 'over-engineering' are abstract concepts, not trigger phrases like 'write code', 'refactor', or 'code review'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Extremely generic - 'coding standards' could apply to virtually any programming task. Would conflict with any code-related skill since it doesn't specify a clear niche or distinct use case. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill excels at conciseness through effective use of tables and direct rules. The workflow sections provide excellent validation checkpoints. However, it could benefit from more executable code examples to demonstrate the principles rather than just stating them as rules.
Suggestions
Add 1-2 concrete before/after code examples showing the anti-patterns and their fixes (e.g., a refactored function demonstrating guard clauses vs deep nesting)
Include a small executable code snippet demonstrating the naming conventions in context rather than just listing rules
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean and efficient use of tables to convey rules. No unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Every section earns its place with actionable guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear rules and anti-patterns in table format, but lacks executable code examples. The one code snippet shown is a conceptual diagram rather than runnable code. Rules are specific but not copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear multi-step workflows for editing files and self-checking before completion. The 'Before Editing ANY File' and 'Self-Check Before Completing' sections provide explicit validation checkpoints with clear sequencing. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured overview with clear navigation to sub-skills via one-level-deep references. Knowledge modules are clearly signaled with links to separate files for detailed content. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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 | |
- 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.