cpp-testing

Use only when writing/updating/fixing C++ tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, diagnosing failing or flaky tests, or adding coverage/sanitizers.

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Quality

Content

72%

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 C++ testing skill with executable examples for gtest/gmock, CTest, coverage, and sanitizers. Its main weaknesses are mild redundancy in the trivial Add example and a lack of explicit validation checkpoints in the debugging/full-suite workflow.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicated trivial Add example — keep it in the TDD RED→GREEN→REFACTOR walkthrough and drop or differentiate the separate 'Basic Unit Test (gtest)' section to tighten token use.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the 'Debugging Failures' workflow, e.g. re-run the targeted test and confirm green before expanding to the full suite, so the feedback loop is gated rather than implied.

Consider adding a short 'when validation fails' recovery loop for sanitizer/coverage builds (e.g. on ASan abort, narrow the failing test then re-run) to strengthen workflow clarity for batch/risky operations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly lean with terse bullets and code over explanation, but the trivial Add example is near-duplicated (TDD section and 'Basic Unit Test') and the body could be tightened — fitting 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place (3) or padded (1) anchors.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully executable gtest/gmock tests, CMake/CTest, coverage (gcov/lcov, llvm-cov), and sanitizer snippets that are copy-paste ready, matching the top anchor; not the pseudocode (2) or abstract (1) anchors.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The RED→GREEN→REFACTOR loop and numbered 'Debugging Failures' steps give a sequence, but batch/risky operations (full-suite runs, sanitizer builds) lack explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoints, fitting 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' rather than the gated feedback-loop (3) anchor.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist, so the single well-sectioned SKILL.md is appropriately organized with no nested references — per the no-external-references guidance this earns the top anchor; not the inline-overload (2) or deep-nesting (1) anchors.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

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 tight, third-person description with explicit trigger guidance and a clearly bounded C++ testing niche. It avoids verbosity and over-claims while naming concrete actions and natural trigger terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'writing/updating/fixing C++ tests', 'configuring GoogleTest/CTest', 'diagnosing failing or flaky tests', 'adding coverage/sanitizers' — matching the top anchor rather than the vague 'Names domain and some actions' (2) or generic 'Helps with' (1).	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (the test/config/diagnosis/coverage actions) and when ('Use only when ...') with explicit triggers, hitting the top anchor; not the implied-only (2) or missing-when (1) anchors.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Uses natural terms users would actually say — 'C++ tests', 'GoogleTest', 'CTest', 'flaky tests', 'coverage', 'sanitizers' — with good coverage of variations, not the single-keyword (2) or jargon-only (1) anchors.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear C++ testing niche with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for non-test or non-C++ skills, matching the top anchor; not the broad 'could overlap' (2) or generic (1) anchors.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 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
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/ECC
Commit: 754b8dd

Reviewed: 4 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.