CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ax-cpp-gepa

Use when writing C++ code with `axllm` for GEPA, Pareto tradeoffs, reflection clients, metric budgets, optimizer state, and artifacts.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is an exemplar of token efficiency: dense package facts, a compact API surface list, and substantive behavioral guardrails with zero tutorial padding. Its only gaps are that the core code pattern is a call shape with undefined placeholders and workflows are implied through guardrails rather than explicit sequences.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lines like "Real network support: yes." and "Language: C++." are pure fact-statements, and every section (Package Facts, Core Pattern, API Surface, Guardrails) carries only non-inferable information with no concept tutorials or padding — matching anchor 5's "every token earns its place".

5 / 5

Actionability

The pattern "axllm::AxGEPA engine(reflection_client, options);" plus the exact symbol list ("axllm::optimize", "axllm::AxBootstrapFewShot", "axllm::OptimizerEngine") gives mostly executable guidance, but the core pattern uses undefined placeholders and defers complete code to `examples/` — minor gaps versus anchor 5's copy-paste-ready coverage.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Guardrails such as "Start from package examples for exact native syntax" and "Use `no-key` examples for deterministic local checks" function as checkpoints, and "Use BootstrapFewShot before GEPA" supplies ordering; however, no explicit sequenced workflow with validation steps is laid out, which fits anchor 4 rather than anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines with clean sections, and bulk detail is appropriately deferred to one-level-deep package references clearly listed in Package Facts ("Package API docs: `API.md` and `axir-api.json`", "Runnable examples: `examples/`") — matching the simple-skill exception and anchor 5's clear overview with well-signaled references.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The description is a tight, highly distinctive trigger for a niche generated-package skill, with an explicit "Use when" clause and good domain keyword coverage. Its main weakness is that capabilities are expressed as a topic list under a single verb rather than distinct actions, leaving the 'what' implicit in the trigger clause.

Suggestions

State the 'what' explicitly before the trigger clause, e.g., "Provides API patterns, package facts, and guardrails for writing C++ code with the generated `axllm` package. Use when..." — currently the capability statement is fused into the 'Use when' clause.

Convert topic nouns into concrete actions (e.g., "run the GEPA optimizer, inspect GEPA artifacts, track metric budgets and Pareto fronts") to strengthen specificity.

Add natural synonyms a user might say, such as "Pareto front", "optimizer", and "bootstrap demonstrations", to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"GEPA, Pareto tradeoffs, reflection clients, metric budgets, optimizer state, and artifacts" enumerates six concrete capability areas, matching anchor 4's several-specific-items coverage, but they all hang off the single verb "writing", so it falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive multi-action coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

The explicit "Use when writing C++ code with `axllm`..." clause answers 'when' concretely and the 'what' is discernible but fused into that clause rather than stated separately, matching anchor 4 (both present, one could be more explicit) rather than anchor 5's fully separate and explicit what-and-when.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "C++", "axllm", "GEPA", "Pareto tradeoffs", "reflection clients", and "metric budgets" are the natural vocabulary for this domain (above anchor 3), but common variations such as "Pareto front", "optimizer", or "bootstrap demos" are missing, short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pairing of "`axllm`" with "GEPA" and "reflection clients" forms a clear niche with distinct triggers; virtually no other skill would fire on these terms, matching anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

ax-llm/ax

Path

packages/cpp/skills/ax-cpp-gepa/SKILL.md

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.