cpp-testing
C++ テストの作成/更新/修正、GoogleTest/CTest の設定、失敗またはフレーキーなテストの診断、カバレッジ/サニタイザーの追加時にのみ使用します。
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill cpp-testing89
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
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.
This is a well-crafted skill description that clearly defines its scope for C++ testing tasks. It uses specific technical terms that developers would naturally use, explicitly lists the scenarios when it should be triggered, and is distinctive enough to avoid conflicts with other testing-related skills. The description is concise yet comprehensive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: creating/updating/fixing tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, diagnosing failed or flaky tests, and adding coverage/sanitizers. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (test creation/update/fix, GoogleTest/CTest config, diagnosis, coverage/sanitizers) AND when with explicit trigger '〜時にのみ使用します' (use only when). The 'when' is explicitly stated through the enumerated scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'C++', 'テスト' (test), 'GoogleTest', 'CTest', 'カバレッジ' (coverage), 'サニタイザー' (sanitizer), 'フレーキー' (flaky). These are terms developers naturally use when discussing C++ testing. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with clear niche: specifically C++ testing with named frameworks (GoogleTest, CTest) and specific concerns (flaky tests, sanitizers). Unlikely to conflict with general testing or other language testing skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
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 strong, actionable skill with excellent code examples and clear workflows for C++ testing with GoogleTest/CMake. The TDD workflow is well-explained and the debugging/coverage/sanitizer sections provide concrete, executable guidance. Minor improvements could be made by trimming redundant sections and potentially splitting advanced topics into separate files for better progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly condense the 'When to Use' and 'When Not to Use' sections - Claude can infer appropriate usage from the skill description
Consider moving Coverage, Sanitizers, and Fuzzing sections to separate reference files (e.g., COVERAGE.md, SANITIZERS.md) with brief pointers from the main skill
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is generally efficient but includes some unnecessary sections like 'When to Use' and 'When Not to Use' that Claude can infer, and the 'Best Practices' section has some redundancy with earlier content. The code examples are appropriately sized. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Excellent executable code examples throughout - complete CMake configurations, working gtest/gmock examples, concrete bash commands for coverage and sanitizers. All code is copy-paste ready with clear context. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear TDD workflow (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR) with explicit steps. Debugging section provides a clear sequence. Coverage and sanitizer sections have step-by-step commands with validation (running tests after build). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but everything is in a single file. The 'Optional Appendix' for fuzzing is good progressive disclosure, but the document is quite long and could benefit from splitting advanced topics (coverage, sanitizers, fuzzing) into separate reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.