cpp-coding-standards

C++ coding standards based on the C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io). Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code to enforce modern, safe, and idiomatic practices.

Quality

79%

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/cpp-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.

A highly actionable, well-organized standards reference with excellent code examples and a useful validation checklist, but it functions as a monolithic restatement of the Core Guidelines rather than a curated overview pointing to bundled references, and much of it duplicates knowledge Claude already has. Splitting topic catalogs into one-level-deep reference files would improve both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Split the per-topic rule tables and code examples into one-level-deep reference files (e.g., references/functions.md, references/classes.md, references/concurrency.md) and keep SKILL.md to the cross-cutting principles, When to Use guidance, and the Quick Reference Checklist with clear 'See [X.md]' navigation.

Trim boilerplate implementations Claude can already produce (full Rule of Five Buffer class, RAII FileHandle, lock_guard queue) down to the rule ID plus a one-line pattern statement, keeping full code only where the project's conventions deviate from the Core Guidelines defaults.

Make the review workflow explicit as a sequenced loop — review code against section rules → run the Quick Reference Checklist → fix violations → re-check — so the checklist acts as a validation gate rather than a standalone appendix.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body avoids padded prose (terse rule tables and code), but at ~720 lines it restates Core Guidelines rules and boilerplate implementations (Rule of Five, RAII handle class, lock idioms) that Claude already knows, so significant portions could be trimmed or replaced with project-specific deltas. It is not a 2 because nothing is explanatory fluff — every line is a rule, a summary, or executable code.	3 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable, copy-paste-ready C++ examples throughout, explicit DO/DON'T contrasts per section, and an 18-item Quick Reference Checklist keyed to rule IDs — concrete instruction covering the common cases, matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	"When to Use"/"When NOT to Use" scopes the work and the checklist ("Before marking C++ work complete") provides a validation checkpoint, but there is no explicit sequence wiring the checklist into a check → fix → re-check loop; 5 would require that feedback loop while 3 would understate the present checkpoint structure.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized with clear headers and tables, but all content — including per-topic rule catalogs that clearly belong in separate reference files — is inlined in a single ~720-line SKILL.md with no references/ split. Not a 2 because internal structure and navigation are genuinely good.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 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.

A strong description that clearly states what the skill provides and when to use it, with natural trigger phrasing and a well-defined niche. The only gap is that capability description is slightly abstract and a few common synonyms/extensions (cpp, .cpp) are absent.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ("C++ coding standards") and the source of truth ("C++ Core Guidelines") with several concrete action contexts ("writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code"), but the capability statement "enforce modern, safe, and idiomatic practices" remains one notch abstract compared to the comprehensive multi-action anchor 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ("C++ coding standards based on the C++ Core Guidelines ... to enforce modern, safe, and idiomatic practices") and when ("Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases users would actually say ("writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code", "C++ Core Guidelines") with good coverage, but misses common variations like "cpp", ".cpp", or "modern C++" that the anchor-5 synonym/extension coverage expects.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (C++ standards enforcement anchored to the Core Guidelines) with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, differentiating it from generic code-review or language-agnostic skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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 (725 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/cpp-coding-standards/SKILL.md
Commit: c70874f

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.