CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

c-pro

Write efficient C code with proper memory management, pointer

67

1.01x
Quality

53%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

90%

1.01x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/c-pro/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is c-pro in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%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.

The body is well-organized and lean, naming concrete tools and standards, but provides no executable code or commands and lacks validation checkpoints for risky memory operations. Its single external reference is dangling.

Suggestions

Add at least one copy-paste-ready code or command example, e.g. a minimal malloc/free pair with a return-value check or a valgrind invocation.

Turn the 'Approach' checklist into a sequenced workflow with an explicit validation step such as 'run valgrind --leak-check=full and confirm zero leaks before finishing'.

Fix or remove the reference to resources/implementation-playbook.md — no such file exists in the bundle; either create it under references/ or drop the pointer.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean bullet points that assume Claude's competence, with only minor trims needed such as the 'You are a C programming expert' line and generic instruction bullets, fitting the 4-anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete tools and flags are named (clang-tidy, -Wall -Wextra, valgrind, gdb, CUnit) but there is no executable code or copy-paste command, leaving key details missing per the 3-anchor.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 'Approach' list provides coherent ordered practices but no sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints for error-prone memory operations, matching the 3-anchor's 'steps listed but validation gaps'.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are organized and a one-level reference is signaled ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md'), but the referenced file does not exist in the bundle and uses a non-standard path, leaving navigation only partially reliable.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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.

The description names the C domain and a couple of concrete concerns but is truncated, lacks a 'Use when' trigger clause, and omits common synonyms. It is serviceable but generic, meriting a mid-range score.

Suggestions

Complete the sentence (the trailing 'pointer' is unfinished) and add 1-2 more concrete actions such as pointer arithmetic, memory pools, or pthreads to lift specificity.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause stating when Claude should invoke this skill, e.g. writing or debugging C systems/embedded code.

Include natural trigger synonyms users actually say, such as 'C programming', 'pointers', 'malloc/free', and 'memory leaks'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase 'Write efficient C code with proper memory management, pointer' names the C domain and two concrete concerns (efficient code, memory management), but the dangling 'pointer' and lack of further actions make coverage incomplete, matching the 3-anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

A clear 'what' is present but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'C code' and 'memory management' are relevant natural keywords, but common variations and synonyms (C programming, pointers, malloc, .c) are missing, placing it at the 3-anchor rather than 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It is reasonably tied to C systems programming and unlikely to collide with unrelated skills, but the truncated phrasing and weak triggers leave overlap risk with generic coding skills, fitting the 3-anchor better than 4.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
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.