m15-anti-pattern
Use when reviewing code for anti-patterns. Keywords: anti-pattern, common mistake, pitfall, code smell, bad practice, code review, is this an anti-pattern, better way to do this, common mistake to avoid, why is this bad, idiomatic way, beginner mistake, fighting borrow checker, clone everywhere, unwrap in production, should I refactor, 反模式, 常见错误, 代码异味, 最佳实践, 地道写法
75
70%
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 ./skills/m15-anti-pattern/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
54%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 has excellent trigger term coverage with natural phrases users would say and multilingual support, but critically lacks specificity about what the skill actually does. The 'what' portion is essentially missing - it needs concrete actions like 'identifies anti-patterns, explains why they're problematic, and suggests idiomatic alternatives'.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Identifies anti-patterns in code, explains why they're problematic, and suggests idiomatic refactoring approaches'
Clarify the scope - is this Rust-specific (given borrow checker/unwrap references) or general? If Rust-specific, state that explicitly to improve distinctiveness
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only mentions 'reviewing code for anti-patterns' without listing any concrete actions. It doesn't specify what the skill actually does - no verbs like 'identifies', 'suggests fixes', 'explains', or 'refactors'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Has a 'Use when' clause with trigger keywords (the 'when'), but the 'what' is extremely weak - it only says 'reviewing code for anti-patterns' without explaining what actions the skill performs or what outputs it provides. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural keywords users would say: 'anti-pattern', 'code smell', 'bad practice', 'code review', 'is this an anti-pattern', 'better way to do this', 'should I refactor', plus language-specific terms like 'fighting borrow checker', 'clone everywhere', 'unwrap in production', and Chinese translations. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The anti-pattern focus provides some distinctiveness, and Rust-specific terms like 'borrow checker' and 'unwrap in production' help narrow the niche. However, 'code review' is generic and could overlap with general code review skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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 is a well-structured anti-patterns reference that excels at conciseness and organization. The table-heavy format packs substantial information efficiently, and the trace up/down navigation is excellent. The main weakness is the lack of concrete code examples showing before/after transformations, which would make the guidance more immediately actionable.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 concrete before/after code examples for the most common anti-patterns (e.g., clone everywhere → proper references)
Include a small executable example showing the transformation from `.unwrap()` to proper error handling with `?`
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean and efficient. Uses tables extensively to pack maximum information into minimal tokens. No unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows - assumes competence with Rust. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear patterns and anti-patterns with concrete guidance, but lacks executable code examples. The tables describe what to do but don't show actual code transformations (e.g., 'use references' without showing the before/after code). | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | For a code review skill, the workflow is clear: identify smell → trace to root cause → apply fix. The 'Thinking Prompt' section provides explicit decision steps, and the checklist gives clear validation criteria. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear sections and one-level-deep references to related skills (m01-ownership, m06-error-handling, etc.). The 'Trace Up/Down' sections provide excellent navigation to deeper 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 | |
- Repository
- actionbook/rust-skills
- Commit
1f4becd
- 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.