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

75%

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 ./skills/coding-standards/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

71%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 highly actionable with comprehensive executable examples, but it is verbose for a "baseline" skill and inlines framework-specific content (React, API design) that its own scope boundaries redirect to other skills. No bundle files exist to absorb the overflow.

Suggestions

Remove or shrink the Code Quality Principles section (KISS/DRY/YAGNI/Readability First) — these are concepts Claude already knows and add padding without actionable detail.

Move the React Best Practices and API Design Standards sections into the referenced frontend-patterns/backend-patterns/api-design skills and replace them with one-line pointers, resolving the contradiction with the Scope Boundaries section.

Add a compact review checklist (e.g., naming -> immutability -> error handling -> types) to turn the reference into an explicit, sequenced review workflow with a validation mindset.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The bulk is concrete PASS/FAIL code, but the Code Quality Principles section re-explains KISS/DRY/YAGNI/Readability concepts Claude already knows, and large React/API sections contradict the skill's own scope boundaries, so it is mostly efficient with notable unnecessary material rather than lean (4) or severely padded (2).	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready TypeScript/React examples with PASS/FAIL contrast covering naming, immutability, error handling, async, validation, testing, and code smells, matching anchor 5's fully-executable common-case coverage.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear "When to Activate" triggers and explicit Scope Boundaries give strong activation guidance for a reference skill, but there is no explicit review sequence or checklist, leaving minor gaps versus anchor 5's explicit checkpoints.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure is good and the one external reference (rules/common/coding-style.md) is clearly signaled, but the ~550-line body inlines large React and API-Design sections that the skill itself says belong in frontend-patterns/backend-patterns/api-design, fitting anchor 3's content-that-should-be-separate-is-inline.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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 third-person, concrete, and well-bounded, explicitly stating what it covers and when to use it while differentiating itself from related framework-specific skills. Its main limitation is that the when-clause enumerates fewer trigger situations than the what-clause lists concerns.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain plus four specific concern areas ("naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review"), which is several concrete items with minor coverage gaps rather than the 1-2 of anchor 3 or the comprehensive concrete-action list of anchor 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ("Baseline cross-project coding conventions for naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review") and when ("Use when reviewing code quality or naming with no framework-specific skill that applies"), but the when-clause covers only two of the four what-areas, so it could be more comprehensive rather than a clear 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms users would say ("code quality", "naming", "reviewing", "coding conventions") but omits common synonyms such as "code review", "best practices", "clean code", or "linting", fitting anchor 4's good-but-incomplete keyword coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Carves a clear niche as the cross-project floor and explicitly deflects framework-specific work ("Use detailed frontend or backend skills for framework-specific patterns"; "with no framework-specific skill that applies"), giving distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk per anchor 5.	5 / 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
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (552 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/ECC
Path: 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.