clean-code-standards
Core principles and standards for clean code enforcement. Auto-invoked when reviewing code quality, discussing best practices, or planning refactoring work.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:btachinardi/church --skill clean-code-standards61
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
40%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 description suffers from vague, abstract language that fails to communicate concrete capabilities. While it includes trigger guidance, the lack of specific actions (what does 'clean code enforcement' actually do?) makes it difficult for Claude to know when this skill is the right choice versus other code-related skills. The description reads more like a category label than actionable skill documentation.
Suggestions
Replace 'core principles and standards' with specific actions like 'Identifies code smells, suggests naming improvements, flags duplicated logic, recommends SOLID principle adherence'
Add more natural trigger terms users would say: 'code review', 'technical debt', 'maintainability', 'readability', 'code smell'
Clarify what distinguishes this from other code skills - e.g., specify it focuses on structural/design quality rather than syntax, security, or performance
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague language like 'core principles and standards' and 'clean code enforcement' without listing any concrete actions. It doesn't specify what actions Claude will take (e.g., 'identify code smells', 'suggest naming conventions', 'flag duplicated code'). | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'when' clause is present ('Auto-invoked when reviewing code quality, discussing best practices, or planning refactoring work'), but the 'what' is weak and abstract. The description doesn't clearly explain what concrete capabilities this skill provides. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'code quality', 'best practices', and 'refactoring' that users might naturally say. However, it's missing common variations like 'code review', 'code smell', 'technical debt', 'maintainability', or 'readability'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While 'clean code' provides some specificity, terms like 'code quality' and 'best practices' are broad and could overlap with language-specific linting skills, security review skills, or general code review skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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 skill provides a comprehensive, well-organized reference for clean code standards with specific thresholds and rules. Its strengths are conciseness and clear categorization. However, it reads more as a reference document than an actionable skill—lacking executable examples, validation workflows, and links to detailed implementation guides for each standard.
Suggestions
Add executable code examples for key standards (e.g., a branded type example, a proper exhaustive switch pattern, a structured logging snippet)
Include a validation workflow showing how to check compliance: run command → interpret output → fix issues → re-validate
Link to separate detailed files for complex pillars (e.g., 'See [TYPE_SAFETY.md](TYPE_SAFETY.md) for branded type patterns and guard examples')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, using bullet points and tables to convey information without unnecessary explanation. It assumes Claude understands concepts like type safety, git, and architecture patterns without explaining them. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific rules and thresholds (e.g., 'max 350 lines', '90% coverage') but lacks executable code examples. The guidance is concrete but descriptive rather than copy-paste ready commands or code snippets. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'When to Invoke Crusades' table provides clear situational guidance, but there's no validation workflow or feedback loop for applying these standards. Missing explicit steps for how to actually run checks or verify compliance. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections and a reference table, but everything is inline in one file. The crusade commands suggest external functionality but no links to detailed documentation for each pillar or crusade. | 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.
- 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.