common-best-practices

Enforce SOLID principles, guard-clause style, function size limits, and intention-revealing naming across all languages. Use when refactoring for readability, applying clean-code patterns, reviewing naming conventions, or reducing function complexity.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A tight, well-structured checklist skill: lean rules with concrete numeric limits, clean two-file progressive disclosure, and an unambiguous application context. The gaps are minor — some directives lack executable detail and the P0 priority heading is unexplained.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean bullet-style rules with no padding: "Functions < 30 lines. Services < 600 lines" and "isUserAuthenticated > checkUser" deliver maximum signal per token and assume Claude already knows what SOLID is. Not 4: there is no over-explanation to trim.	5 / 5
Actionability	Mostly concrete, checkable rules — numeric size limits, a naming contrast example, explicit prohibitions ("No Empty Catches: Always handle, log, or rethrow"). Not 5: directives like "Validate/sanitize all external inputs" and "Prefer dependency injection" give no how-to or example, and no before/after code sample illustrates guard-clause style.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	As a rule-checklist skill the single action (apply these rules when writing or refactoring code) is unambiguous, and sections are clearly grouped. Not 5: the stray "Priority: P0 (CRITICAL)" heading implies a priority system that is never explained, and there is no guidance on applying rules when they conflict or how to verify compliance.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise ~28-line overview and both detail files are clearly signaled one level deep — "[Code Structure Patterns](references/CODE_STRUCTURE.md) — file/function organization" and "[Effectiveness Guide](references/EFFECTIVENESS.md)" — with the files present in references/ and no further nesting. Not 4: structure, signaling, and placement are all clean.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description with concrete capabilities, an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, and natural keywords. Its main weakness is breadth: claiming applicability across all languages raises overlap risk with language-specific style and review skills.

Suggestions

Narrow the scope claim (e.g., 'for multi-language codebases lacking a project style guide') to reduce overlap with language-specific linting or code-review skills.

Add common user phrasings like 'code smells' or 'function too long' as trigger terms to improve natural-keyword coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions — "Enforce SOLID principles, guard-clause style, function size limits, and intention-revealing naming" — comprehensively covering the clean-code enforcement domain. Not 4: coverage spans principles, style, quantitative limits, and naming with no significant gaps.	5 / 5
Completeness	Clearly answers both what ("Enforce SOLID principles, guard-clause style, function size limits...") and when via an explicit "Use when..." clause with multiple concrete trigger scenarios. Not 4: the when-clause is already explicit and enumerates four distinct triggers, matching the anchor-5 example pattern.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"Refactoring for readability", "applying clean-code patterns", "reviewing naming conventions", and "reducing function complexity" are natural phrases users would say. Not 5: common variations like "code review", "code smells", or "function length" are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Across all languages" is a very broad scope, and the clean-code/refactoring triggers overlap with language-specific style guides and code-review skills. Not 2: the trigger phrases (readability refactoring, naming conventions, complexity reduction) are specific enough to avoid conflict with most unrelated skills.	3 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard
Path: .github/skills/common/common-best-practices/SKILL.md
Commit: 1fa7789

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.