cpp-pro
tessl install github:jeffallan/claude-skills --skill cpp-proUse when building C++ applications requiring modern C++20/23 features, template metaprogramming, or high-performance systems. Invoke for concepts, ranges, coroutines, SIMD optimization, memory management.
Review Score
68%
Validation Score
12/16
Implementation Score
57%
Activation Score
72%
Generated
Validation
Total
12/16Score
Passed| Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary |
license_field | 'license' field is missing |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata |
body_examples | No examples detected (no code fences and no 'Example' wording) |
Implementation
Suggestions 4
Score
57%Overall Assessment
This skill provides a solid organizational framework with excellent progressive disclosure through its reference table structure. However, it lacks concrete executable code examples that would make it immediately actionable, and the workflow section needs explicit validation checkpoints. The role-playing framing and some sections add tokens without adding value for Claude.
Suggestions
- Add 2-3 concrete, executable C++ code examples demonstrating key patterns (e.g., a concept definition, RAII wrapper, or smart pointer usage) to improve actionability
- Remove the 'Role Definition' paragraph and 'When to Use This Skill' section - this context is already provided in the skill description and wastes tokens
- Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow, e.g., 'If sanitizer reports issues: fix memory/UB errors before proceeding to optimization'
- Replace the abstract 'Knowledge Reference' keyword list with a brief example showing how to apply one or two of these concepts
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | 2/3 | The skill includes some unnecessary framing ('You are a senior C++ engineer with 15+ years...') and the 'When to Use This Skill' section largely duplicates information Claude can infer. The constraints and reference table are efficient, but overall could be tightened. |
Actionability | 2/3 | Provides good high-level guidance with clear MUST/MUST NOT constraints and compiler flags, but lacks concrete executable code examples. The workflow is abstract ('Analyze architecture', 'Design with concepts') without showing actual implementation patterns or copy-paste ready snippets. |
Workflow Clarity | 2/3 | The 5-step core workflow provides a logical sequence but lacks validation checkpoints and feedback loops. For a skill involving build systems and sanitizers, there should be explicit 'if errors, then fix' steps rather than just listing 'Run sanitizers' as a verification step. |
Progressive Disclosure | 3/3 | Excellent use of a reference table with clear 'Load When' conditions pointing to topic-specific files. The structure is well-organized with one-level-deep references and clear navigation signals for when to load each reference document. |
Activation
Suggestions 2
Score
72%Overall Assessment
The description excels at trigger term coverage and distinctiveness, making it easy to identify when C++ expertise is needed. However, it lacks specificity about what actions the skill performs - it reads more like a topic list than a capability description. Adding concrete verbs describing what the skill does (writes, optimizes, debugs, explains) would significantly improve it.
Suggestions
- Add concrete action verbs describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Writes, optimizes, and debugs C++ applications' rather than just listing when to use it.
- Restructure to lead with capabilities: 'Develops high-performance C++ code using modern C++20/23 features including concepts, ranges, and coroutines. Use when...'
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | 2/3 | Names the domain (C++ applications) and mentions specific features (C++20/23, template metaprogramming, concepts, ranges, coroutines, SIMD, memory management), but doesn't describe concrete actions - it lists topics rather than what the skill actually does with them. |
Completeness | 2/3 | Has a 'Use when' clause addressing when to invoke, but the 'what' is weak - it describes the context/domain rather than concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'write', 'optimize', 'debug', 'refactor'). |
Trigger Term Quality | 3/3 | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'C++', 'C++20', 'C++23', 'template metaprogramming', 'concepts', 'ranges', 'coroutines', 'SIMD', 'memory management', 'high-performance systems' are all terms developers naturally use when seeking help. |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 3/3 | Very distinct niche targeting modern C++ specifically with clear version markers (C++20/23) and specialized features (SIMD, coroutines, concepts). Unlikely to conflict with general programming or other language skills. |