coding-standards

Baseline cross-project coding conventions for naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review. Use detailed frontend or backend skills for framework-specific patterns. Use when reviewing code quality or naming with no framework-specific skill that applies.

Quality

66%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/coding-standards/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

46%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 content is highly actionable with strong executable code examples, but it is bloated by re-taught basics and inlined framework-specific material that conflicts with its own scope boundaries, and it lacks any verification loop. Progressive disclosure is weak: a monolithic file with a dangling reference and no actual reference files.

Suggestions

Split the React, API design, and Next.js project-structure sections out of SKILL.md and point to the sibling frontend-patterns / backend-patterns / api-design skills, keeping only the genuinely cross-project conventions inline to honor the stated scope boundary.

Trim or remove re-explanations of widely known concepts (KISS/DRY/YAGNI definitions, magic numbers, deep-nesting-to-early-returns) and keep only the project-specific immutability/naming expectations Claude would not already infer.

Add a short verification checklist or feedback loop (e.g., run the linter/formatter/type-checker and confirm no 'any' types or direct mutations remain) so the review workflow has an explicit validation checkpoint.

Resolve or remove the dangling 'rules/common/coding-style.md' reference, and create real reference files for detailed material so progressive disclosure is one level deep and navigable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~545-line body re-teaches concepts Claude already knows (KISS/DRY/YAGNI definitions, magic numbers, early returns, spread immutability) and inlines React/API/Next.js material that the description itself routes to sibling skills, making it noticeably verbose with several padded sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	Extensive executable PASS/FAIL TypeScript and React code blocks (immutability spread, try/catch error handling, Promise.all, zod validation, useDebounce, useMemo) are mostly copy-paste ready, with only minor gaps like '// Implementation' stubs and illustrative code-smell placeholders.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The skill is well organized into clear sections with a 'When to Activate' and 'Scope Boundaries' framing, but as a code-quality/review skill it provides no verification or feedback loop (e.g., run eslint/tsc to confirm conventions hold), leaving checkpoints absent.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle/reference files exist, the single referenced path 'rules/common/coding-style.md' does not resolve within the skill bundle, and sibling-skill content (React, API design, Next.js structure) is fully inlined rather than split out, fitting the 'content that belongs in separate files is inlined' anchor.	2 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 is strong: it states concrete scope, includes an explicit conditional trigger, and actively disambiguates from sibling skills. Its only weakness is that the listed capabilities are conceptual areas rather than crisp discrete actions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions/areas (naming, readability, immutability, code-quality review) but these are domains rather than discrete operations like 'extract, fill, merge', so it sits at anchor 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (baseline conventions for naming, readability, immutability, code-quality review) and 'when' with a concrete, conditional trigger phrase ('Use when reviewing code quality or naming with no framework-specific skill that applies').	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural user phrasing ('reviewing code quality', 'naming') in an explicit 'Use when...' clause with good coverage, but misses common synonyms like refactoring, linting, or code smells that would reach anchor 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Establishes a clear niche as the shared floor and explicitly routes framework-specific work to sibling skills (frontend-patterns, backend-patterns, api-design), minimizing overlap and conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (550 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/ECC
Path: .agents/skills/coding-standards/SKILL.md
Commit: d8409a4

Reviewed: 1 day 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.