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

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

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 well-structured, highly actionable C++ coding standards reference with excellent executable examples and a useful final checklist. Its main weakness is length — at 500+ lines it's a substantial context window cost, and much of the tabular rule summaries restate information Claude already knows about C++ Core Guidelines. The content would benefit from being split into a concise overview SKILL.md with references to detailed topic files.

Suggestions

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

Remove or significantly condense the rule summary tables — Claude already knows the C++ Core Guidelines; focus on the project-specific interpretations and the DO/DON'T code examples that add unique value.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is comprehensive and well-organized, but at ~500+ lines it includes substantial content that Claude already knows (e.g., basic C++ concepts, standard library usage patterns). Many of the rule summary tables restate what the C++ Core Guidelines already say without adding novel insight. However, the code examples are tight and the checklist is efficient.	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 where needed, and demonstrates both correct and incorrect usage. The final checklist is directly actionable for code review.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	This is primarily a coding standards/style guide rather than a multi-step workflow, so the single-task exemption applies. The content is clearly sequenced by topic, the 'When to Use / When NOT to Use' section provides clear scope, and the final checklist serves as an explicit validation step before marking work complete.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is a monolithic document with no references to supporting files. Given its length (~500+ lines), sections like the detailed RAII pattern, concurrency examples, or template concepts could be split into separate reference files. The structure within the single file is good (clear headers, tables), but the sheer volume would benefit from a hub-and-spoke organization.	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 that clearly identifies its niche (C++ Core Guidelines enforcement) and provides explicit trigger guidance. Its main weakness is the lack of specific concrete actions—it describes the general purpose well but doesn't enumerate particular capabilities like detecting specific anti-patterns or suggesting specific modern C++ idioms. The trigger terms and completeness are strong.

Suggestions

Add specific concrete actions to improve specificity, e.g., 'Enforces RAII, recommends smart pointers over raw pointers, flags unsafe casts, suggests range-based for loops, and checks const-correctness.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (C++ coding standards) and references a specific source (C++ Core Guidelines), but doesn't list concrete actions beyond general verbs like 'writing, reviewing, or refactoring'. It lacks specific capabilities like 'enforce RAII patterns, flag raw pointer usage, suggest smart pointer replacements'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (C++ coding standards based on C++ Core Guidelines enforcing modern, safe, idiomatic practices) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code'). The trigger clause is present and explicit.	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	Highly distinctive due to the specific reference to C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io) and the focus on coding standards rather than general C++ coding. Unlikely to conflict with a generic C++ coding skill or other language-specific skills.	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 (725 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	9 / 11 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/everything-claude-code
Commit: ec92b52

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.