general-best-practices
General software development best practices covering code quality, testing, security, performance, and maintainability across technology stacks
32
Quality
18%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./general-best-practices/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
14%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 is too abstract and generic to be useful for skill selection. It reads like a category label rather than a skill description, listing broad concerns (quality, testing, security, performance, maintainability) without specifying concrete actions Claude can take. The lack of any 'Use when...' guidance and the extremely broad scope ('across technology stacks') would make it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill over others.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause specifying explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about code review, refactoring suggestions, writing unit tests, or improving code structure'
Replace abstract categories with concrete actions, e.g., 'Reviews code for common anti-patterns, suggests refactoring improvements, generates unit test templates, identifies security vulnerabilities'
Narrow the scope or specify the niche more clearly to reduce conflict with other skills, e.g., focus on 'general-purpose code review' or 'cross-language best practices when no language-specific skill applies'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses abstract language like 'best practices', 'code quality', 'maintainability' without listing any concrete actions. It describes categories of concerns rather than specific things Claude can do. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Only vaguely addresses 'what' (covers best practices) and completely lacks any 'when' guidance. No 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance is present. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords users might say ('testing', 'security', 'performance', 'code quality') but these are very broad terms that could apply to many contexts. Missing specific variations or natural phrases users would actually type. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Extremely generic - 'software development', 'code quality', 'testing', 'security' would overlap with virtually any coding-related skill. The phrase 'across technology stacks' makes it even more likely to conflict with language-specific or domain-specific skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
22%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads more like a general software engineering principles document than an actionable skill file. It lacks concrete code examples, specific commands, and executable guidance that would help Claude perform tasks. The content covers well-known best practices that Claude already understands, making most of it redundant rather than additive.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples for each major section (e.g., actual structured logging setup, specific error handling patterns with code)
Remove or drastically condense general principles Claude already knows (SOLID, clean architecture basics) and focus on project-specific conventions or non-obvious guidance
Include specific workflows with validation steps for common tasks like 'setting up a new service' or 'adding a new feature'
Either split into focused skill files (testing.md, security.md, etc.) with specific actionable content, or provide references to where detailed implementation guidance lives
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably efficient but includes many general principles Claude already knows (SOLID, clean architecture, basic security practices). Could be significantly tightened by focusing only on project-specific conventions or non-obvious guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Almost entirely abstract guidance with no concrete code examples, specific commands, or executable snippets. Statements like 'Use structured logging' and 'Write clear commit messages' describe rather than instruct with actionable specifics. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No multi-step workflows, sequences, or validation checkpoints are provided. The content is a collection of principles without any process guidance for how to apply them in practice. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into logical sections with clear headers, but it's a monolithic document with no references to external files for detailed guidance. The structure is reasonable but could benefit from splitting detailed topics into separate files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
68%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 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
description_trigger_hint | Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...') | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
body_examples | No examples detected (no code fences and no 'Example' wording) | Warning |
body_steps | No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow | Warning |
Total | 11 / 16 Passed | |
- Repository
- mindrally/skills
- Commit
47f47c1
- 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.