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.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

65%

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

The skill is highly actionable with extensive executable PASS/FAIL code examples, but it is verbose for a 'baseline' skill and reiterates fundamentals Claude already knows. Workflow guidance and progressive disclosure are adequate but lack validation checkpoints and a verified reference file.

Suggestions

Trim or externalize the explanation of KISS/DRY/YAGNI and basic async/Promise.all patterns, keeping only project-specific conventions to improve token efficiency.

Add an explicit review workflow with validation checkpoints (e.g., 'run lint + type-check, review findings, re-validate') since this skill covers code review and batch convention enforcement.

Either create the referenced rules/common/coding-style.md bundle file or remove the dangling reference so progressive disclosure points to a real artifact.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is well-structured and mostly free of concept explanation, but it is long and reiterates widely known principles (KISS/DRY/YAGNI definitions, basic async/await and Promise.all usage) that Claude already knows, so it is not fully lean.	2 / 3
Actionability	It provides numerous complete, copy-paste-ready TypeScript/React/zod examples with clear PASS/FAIL contrasts (e.g., the immutability spread pattern, zod input validation, REST conventions), which are executable and specific.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Activation and scope sections give a usable sequence, but the 'Code Smell Detection' and review-oriented steps lack explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g., run lint/test then re-review) despite the skill covering code review and batch-style enforcement.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is organized into clear sections and signals a one-level reference ('Use rules/common/coding-style.md'), but no bundle file exists at that path and no references/ directory is present, so the signaled reference is not backed by an actual file.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 states a clear purpose and carves out a niche as a 'baseline' floor distinct from framework-specific skills, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause and only partially enumerates concrete actions. It sits solidly at the midpoint of the rubric.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause listing concrete activation moments (e.g., 'Use when starting a new module, reviewing code for quality, or enforcing naming and formatting consistency').

Broaden natural trigger terms in the description itself to include 'linting', 'formatting', 'style guide', and 'code review' rather than relegating them to the body.

Enumerate a few more concrete actions up front (e.g., 'enforce immutability defaults, review for KISS/DRY/YAGNI, set naming conventions') to lift specificity to level 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain and several actions ('naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review') but does not enumerate multiple concrete operations like a level-3 example would, stopping at 'Baseline cross-project coding conventions'.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but the 'when' is only implied via the redirect 'Use detailed frontend or backend skills for framework-specific patterns'; there is no explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 2 per the guidelines.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases such as 'coding conventions', 'naming', 'readability', and 'code-quality review' are terms users might say, but common variations like 'linting', 'formatting', or 'style guide' appear only in the body, not the description.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The scope is somewhat specific (baseline cross-project conventions) and it flags overlap with frontend/backend skills, but broad terms like 'code-quality review' could still overlap with other review-oriented skills.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 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
Commit: 4130457

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.