c-pro

Write efficient C code with proper memory management, pointer

Quality

38%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/c-pro/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

43%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 content is well-sectioned and mostly token-efficient, but it provides no executable code, commands, or worked examples, and its one referenced file does not actually exist in the bundle. It reads as a checklist of principles rather than actionable, copy-paste-ready guidance.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable examples: a minimal malloc/free pair with return-value checks, a sample Makefile with -Wall -Wextra, and a CUnit test stub.

Replace the five-principle list with a sequenced workflow that includes validation checkpoints (e.g. compile clean -> run tests -> valgrind clean -> benchmark).

Either create resources/implementation-playbook.md or remove the dangling reference so the only cited reference is a real bundle file.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean — short bulleted focus areas, a compact numbered Approach, and a brief Output list — with only minor over-explanation (e.g. 'You are a C programming expert...') that could be trimmed, fitting the 'efficient with minor instances to tighten' anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance stays high-level ('Check all return values', 'Use static analysis tools (clang-tidy)', 'Profile before optimizing') with no executable code, commands, or copy-paste examples; it describes rather than instructs, matching the anchor with high-level hints but missing specific steps.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Approach section lists five rough principles in sequence but they are not an executable workflow, and for output that includes Makefiles and tests there are no validation or verification checkpoints — a rough sequence with gaps and absent validation.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are reasonably organized (Focus Areas, Approach, Output, Example, Limitations) and there is one signaled reference ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md'), but that path does not exist as a bundle file and no references/ directory is present, so structure is present with a reference that is not clearly backed.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

33%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 identifies the C domain and touches on memory management and pointers, but it is truncated mid-phrase and lacks any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance. It reads more like a partial tagline than a complete, self-describing trigger.

Suggestions

Complete the truncated description and list several concrete actions (e.g. 'write, review, and debug C code; manage memory; profile performance').

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user phrases like 'writing C code', 'fixing memory leaks', or 'embedded systems tasks'.

Include synonyms and file extensions users actually say (e.g. '.c/.h files', 'systems programming', 'POSIX') to improve trigger term coverage and distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the C domain plus two concrete capability areas — 'efficient C code' and 'proper memory management, pointer' — but the list is cut off mid-phrase and coverage is not comprehensive, matching the anchor that names a domain with 1-2 concrete actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	It gives a vague 'what' ('Write efficient C code...') but no 'when' trigger clause at all, which per the guidelines caps completeness; with only a weak 'what' and no 'when' this sits at the low end of the anchor that has a vague 'what' and no 'when'.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The only natural term is 'C code'; the rest ('memory management', 'pointer') are technical jargon rather than phrases a user would naturally say, and common synonyms (systems programming, embedded, POSIX) are absent — one or two generic keywords with the natural phrasing missing.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The C-programming niche is somewhat specific and unlikely to trigger unrelated skills, yet 'C code' with memory/pointer phrasing could still overlap with general coding or debugging skills, so it is somewhat specific but with residual overlap risk.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Path: skills/c-pro/SKILL.md
Commit: b1aebac

Reviewed: ~18 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.