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。
87
82%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
92%
1.22xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
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 strong, well-crafted skill description that clearly defines its scope around C++ testing with specific frameworks and tools. It explicitly states when to use it ('のみ使用します' - use only when) and lists concrete actions. The inclusion of specific technologies (GoogleTest, CTest) and scenarios (flaky tests, sanitizers, coverage) makes it highly distinctive and easy for Claude to select appropriately.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: creating/updating/fixing C++ tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, diagnosing failing or flaky tests, and adding coverage/sanitizers. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (C++ test creation/update/fix, GoogleTest/CTest configuration, diagnosing flaky tests, adding coverage/sanitizers) and 'when' with an explicit trigger clause ('のみ使用します' = 'use only when' these specific scenarios apply). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'C++ テスト', 'GoogleTest', 'CTest', 'フレーキー' (flaky), 'カバレッジ' (coverage), 'サニタイザー' (sanitizer), '失敗' (failure/failing). These cover the key terms a developer would use when requesting help with C++ testing. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with a clear niche: C++ testing specifically with GoogleTest/CTest. The mention of specific frameworks, sanitizers, and coverage makes it very unlikely to conflict with general coding skills or testing skills for other languages. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable C++ testing skill with excellent executable code examples covering GoogleTest, GMock, CMake/CTest, coverage, and sanitizers. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity with some redundant sections (flaky test guardrails vs. best practices vs. common pitfalls), and the lack of progressive disclosure for a document of this length. The workflow clarity could be improved with explicit validation checkpoints in the debugging and coverage workflows.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'Flaky Test Guardrails', 'Best Practices', and 'Common Pitfalls' sections into a single concise reference to eliminate redundancy.
Add explicit validation/verification steps to the debugging workflow (e.g., 'confirm fix by running full suite and checking CI passes') and coverage workflow.
Split detailed coverage, sanitizer, and fuzzing content into separate referenced files to improve progressive disclosure for this lengthy skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly comprehensive but includes some unnecessary sections like 'When to use / When not to use' that Claude can infer, and the best practices / common pitfalls sections have significant overlap with the flaky test guardrails section. The core concepts section is somewhat redundant with the detailed sections that follow. Overall it's longer than needed but not egregiously verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides fully executable code examples for unit tests, fixtures, mocks, CMake configuration, coverage setup, and sanitizer configuration. The bash commands are copy-paste ready, and the CMake snippets are complete and functional. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The TDD workflow (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR) is clearly sequenced, and the debugging section has ordered steps. However, the debugging workflow lacks explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops — it says 'expand to full suite' but doesn't specify verification that the fix actually resolves the issue. The coverage and sanitizer sections are presented as standalone recipes without clear integration into a validation workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear section headers and logical grouping, but it's monolithic — everything is in one file with no references to external files for detailed topics like coverage, sanitizers, or fuzzing. The fuzzing appendix and alternatives section could be split out. For a skill of this length (~250+ lines), some progressive disclosure to separate files would improve navigability. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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.
- Repository
- affaan-m/everything-claude-code
- Commit
5df943e
- 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.