cpp-pro
Use 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.
79
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/skillAgent success when using this skill
Validation for skill structure
Discovery
89%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 skill description with excellent trigger terms and clear 'when to use' guidance. The main weakness is that it lists features and topics rather than concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'write', 'optimize', 'debug'). The description effectively carves out a distinct niche for modern C++ development.
Suggestions
Add concrete action verbs describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Writes, optimizes, and debugs C++ applications using modern C++20/23 features...'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | 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 like 'write', 'optimize', 'debug', or 'refactor' - it lists topics rather than what the skill actually does. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both what (building C++ applications with modern features, template metaprogramming, high-performance systems) and when ('Use when building...', 'Invoke for...') with clear trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'C++', 'C++20', 'C++23', 'template metaprogramming', 'high-performance', 'concepts', 'ranges', 'coroutines', 'SIMD', 'memory management' - these are all terms developers naturally use when seeking help with modern C++. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with specific C++ version numbers (C++20/23) and specialized features (concepts, ranges, coroutines, SIMD) that clearly differentiate it from generic programming skills or other language-specific skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill has strong organizational structure with excellent progressive disclosure through its reference table, but suffers from lack of concrete code examples and overly abstract workflow steps. The constraints section is valuable but would benefit from accompanying code snippets demonstrating correct vs incorrect patterns. The role definition adds unnecessary tokens without improving actionability.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 concrete, executable C++ code examples demonstrating key patterns (e.g., a concept definition, RAII wrapper, or smart pointer usage)
Remove or significantly condense the 'Role Definition' section - Claude doesn't need persona framing to apply the technical guidance
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow, such as 'If sanitizer reports issues: fix memory errors before proceeding to optimization'
Replace the abstract 'Knowledge Reference' keyword list with a brief example showing how to apply one of these concepts
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | 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 reference table and constraints are efficient, but the role definition adds little value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides good high-level guidance with clear constraints (MUST DO/MUST NOT DO) 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. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step core workflow provides a reasonable 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. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent use of a reference table with clear 'Load When' conditions pointing to one-level-deep reference files. The structure cleanly separates overview content from detailed guidance, with well-signaled navigation to specific topics. | 3 / 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.