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

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

87%

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

The body is an exceptionally lean, high-density standards reference with concrete thresholds and well-structured one-level-deep file references, but it is a ruleset rather than a workflow, so it lacks sequenced steps and validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

If a refactor workflow is intended, add a short ordered sequence (e.g., measure size -> apply guard clauses -> re-check thresholds) with a verification checkpoint so workflow clarity can reach the top anchor.

Consider one inline micro-example of a guard-clause refactor in the body so the core rule is self-contained before relying on the reference files.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is a lean, high-density bullet list that assumes Claude already knows SOLID/KISS/DRY/YAGNI acronyms and only lists the expansions that matter, with no padding or restating of basic concepts, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor.	3 / 3
Actionability	It gives concrete, copy-applicable directives with specific numeric thresholds ('Functions < 30 lines. Services < 600 lines. Utils < 400 lines.') and named patterns to apply; for an instruction-only standards skill the guidance is actionable even though executable examples live in the referenced files.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is no multi-step process or sequence to follow — it is a standards checklist organized into sections, and no validation checkpoints are present; while well-organized, it does not demonstrate a sequenced workflow, so it caps below the clear-sequence anchor.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The SKILL.md is a concise overview that links to two real, one-level-deep reference files ('references/CODE_STRUCTURE.md', 'references/EFFECTIVENESS.md') with clear labels and descriptions, matching the well-signaled one-level-deep reference anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

77%

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 is specific, third-person, and complete with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, but its trigger terms are somewhat jargon-heavy and its broad cross-language scope raises overlap risk with more specialized skills.

Suggestions

Add more natural, user-spoken trigger phrases (e.g., 'clean up this code', 'simplify this function', 'make this code more readable') alongside the technical terms.

Narrow or clarify the scope to reduce conflict with language-specific clean-code skills, or state explicitly that this is the fallback when no language-specific skill applies.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Enumerates four concrete capabilities ('Enforce SOLID principles, guard-clause style, function size limits, and intention-revealing naming'), matching the anchor for listing multiple specific concrete actions rather than naming only a domain and some actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill does ('Enforce SOLID principles...') and gives an explicit 'Use when refactoring for readability, applying clean-code patterns, reviewing naming conventions, or reducing function complexity' clause, clearly answering both what and when in third person.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Triggers like 'refactoring for readability', 'applying clean-code patterns', 'reviewing naming conventions' are relevant but lean technical ('clean-code patterns', 'function complexity') and miss common natural phrasings a user would say like 'clean up this code' or 'simplify this function', so it stops at some-relevant-keywords.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It defines a clean-code niche but 'across all languages' and the broad common-best-practices framing make it a catch-all that could overlap with many language-specific skills, so it is only somewhat specific rather than a clear non-conflicting niche.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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
Commit: 611f52a

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.