cpp-testing

仅用于编写/更新/修复C++测试、配置GoogleTest/CTest、诊断失败或不稳定的测试，或添加覆盖率/消毒器时使用。

1.05x

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

1.05x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

78%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-structured C++ testing playbook with executable code throughout and clear workflows. Its main weakness is monolithic structure with no progressive file disclosure and some duplicated guidance.

Suggestions

Split advanced sections (coverage, sanitizers, fuzzing/property testing, GoogleTest alternatives) into reference files (e.g. COVERAGE.md, SANITIZERS.md) linked from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure and shorten the main file.

Deduplicate repeated guidance — the 'avoid sleep, use condition variables' rule appears in 偶发性测试防护, 不应该做, and 常见陷阱; state it once and reference it.

Remove the second TDD red/green/refactor definition (it is already given in 核心概念) to cut a concept Claude already knows.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient, actionable code/config with little padding, but contains minor redundancy (the 'avoid sleep / use condition variables' guidance recurs across 偶发性测试防护, 不应该做, and 常见陷阱) and briefly re-explains concepts Claude already knows (TDD red/green/refactor appears in both 核心概念 and TDD 工作流); not 5 because of these trimmable instances, not 3 because the bulk earns its place.	4 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable, copy-paste-ready gtest/gmock examples, CMakeLists.txt, ctest/lcov/llvm-cov commands, and sanitizer CMake cover the common cases; the few pseudocode stubs are explicitly justified, fitting the 5-anchor.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The TDD RED→GREEN→REFACTOR cycle and the 4-step 调试失败 sequence are clearly ordered with implicit validation (green = pass, run subset then full suite with --output-on-failure); not 5 because validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit validate-then-proceed gates, not 3 because sequencing and most checkpoints are present.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized with clear headers, but the skill is a ~320-line monolith with no bundle files and no external references, while advanced sections (coverage, sanitizers, fuzzing, alternatives) could be split into reference files — fitting the 3-anchor 'content that should be separate is inline'; not 4 because there are no file references at all and the inline advanced content is more than a minor gap.	3 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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, specific description that explicitly pairs concrete C++ testing capabilities with clear 'use when' triggers and a tight niche. The only gap is a few missing natural synonyms (CMake, gmock, .cpp).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 编写/更新/修复C++测试, 配置GoogleTest/CTest, 诊断失败或不稳定的测试, 添加覆盖率/消毒器 — giving comprehensive coverage of C++ testing tasks, matching the 5-anchor; not 4 because coverage is broad rather than having minor gaps.	5 / 5
Completeness	The '仅用于...时使用' framing gives explicit, specific 'when' guidance with concrete trigger scenarios while the listed actions convey the 'what', clearly answering both; not 4 because the 'when' is already highly explicit and specific rather than needing more detail.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms users would say (C++测试, GoogleTest, CTest, 覆盖率, 失败或不稳定的测试), but misses common variations/synonyms like CMake, gmock, and .cpp extensions, fitting the 4-anchor rather than 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Narrowly scoped to C++ testing with GoogleTest/CTest and the '仅用于' (only use for) limiter, giving a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against general testing or C++ development skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 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
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/ECC
Path: docs/zh-CN/skills/cpp-testing/SKILL.md
Commit: e04ea0b

Reviewed: 2 days 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.