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.

1.11x

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

1.11x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

77%

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

This is a high-quality, comprehensive C++ coding standards reference with excellent actionability — every section has executable code examples and clear DO/DON'T patterns. Its main weakness is length: at 500+ lines covering 13+ sections, it would benefit from splitting into a concise overview SKILL.md with references to detailed topic files. Some rule tables restate knowledge Claude likely already has, though the specific rule numbers and their mapping to code patterns add genuine value.

Suggestions

Split detailed sections (Classes, Resource Management, Concurrency, Templates, etc.) into separate referenced files, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with the cross-cutting principles and checklist.

Trim rule summary tables to only include rules that are non-obvious or frequently violated — Claude already knows many of these C++ best practices and the tables add significant token cost.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is comprehensive and well-organized, but at ~500+ lines it's quite verbose for a coding standards reference. Many of the rule tables restate what Claude already knows about C++ best practices. The anti-pattern lists and some explanatory comments could be trimmed. However, the code examples are tight and the structure avoids truly unnecessary prose.	2 / 3
Actionability	Every section provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready C++ code examples with clear DO/DON'T patterns. The code is complete (not pseudocode), includes proper includes, and demonstrates both correct and incorrect usage. The final checklist is directly actionable for code review.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	This is a coding standards skill (not a multi-step destructive workflow), so the single-task nature applies. The content is clearly sequenced by topic with a logical progression from philosophy through specific domains. The final checklist serves as an explicit validation checkpoint before marking work complete, which is appropriate for this type of skill.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-structured with clear section headers and a logical hierarchy, but it's entirely monolithic — all content is inline in a single file with no references to supporting files. Given the length (~500+ lines covering 13+ major sections), splitting detailed sections (e.g., concurrency, templates, resource management) into separate reference files would improve navigability. The external link to isocpp.github.io is good but insufficient for progressive disclosure.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

89%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is a solid description with clear 'what' and 'when' clauses, good trigger terms, and a distinct niche. Its main weakness is the lack of specific concrete actions—it describes the domain well but doesn't enumerate the specific capabilities (e.g., enforcing RAII, checking naming conventions, flagging raw pointer usage).

Suggestions

Add specific concrete actions to improve specificity, e.g., 'Enforces RAII patterns, flags raw pointer usage, checks naming conventions, recommends smart pointers and modern idioms.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (C++ coding standards) and references the C++ Core Guidelines, but doesn't list specific concrete actions beyond 'writing, reviewing, or refactoring.' It lacks detail on what specific standards or checks are enforced (e.g., memory safety rules, naming conventions, RAII patterns).	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (C++ coding standards based on C++ Core Guidelines) and 'when' (Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code). The explicit 'Use when...' clause with specific trigger scenarios is present.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'C++', 'coding standards', 'C++ Core Guidelines', 'writing', 'reviewing', 'refactoring', 'modern', 'safe', 'idiomatic'. These are terms users would naturally use when seeking help with C++ best practices.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clearly scoped to C++ Core Guidelines specifically, which distinguishes it from general coding skills, other language-specific skills, or even other C++ skills that might focus on compilation or debugging rather than coding standards.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

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 — 9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (724 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	9 / 11 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/everything-claude-code
Commit: 5b173d2

Reviewed: 3 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.