c-pro
Write efficient C code with proper memory management, pointer
24
14%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/c-pro/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
22%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 truncated mid-sentence, rendering it incomplete and ineffective for skill selection. It touches on the C programming domain with mentions of memory management and pointers, but lacks concrete actions, explicit trigger guidance, and is too vague to reliably distinguish from other coding skills.
Suggestions
Complete the truncated sentence and list specific concrete actions (e.g., 'Write C code with proper memory management, debug pointer issues, optimize performance, handle malloc/free patterns').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'C programming', 'malloc', 'free', 'segfault', 'pointer arithmetic', 'buffer overflow', '.c files'.
Clarify the scope to distinguish from general coding skills — specify whether this covers writing new C code, reviewing existing code, debugging memory leaks, etc.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description mentions 'memory management' and 'pointer' but is clearly truncated and does not list concrete actions. It vaguely references writing C code without specifying what tasks it performs (e.g., debugging, optimization, code generation). | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description is truncated mid-sentence, so it fails to fully answer 'what does this do' and completely lacks any 'when should Claude use it' guidance. The absence of a 'Use when...' clause caps this at 2, but the incomplete sentence drops it further. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'C code', 'memory management', and 'pointer' that users might naturally mention, but the description appears cut off and is missing common variations like 'malloc', 'free', 'segfault', 'buffer overflow', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'C code' and 'memory management' provides some specificity to the C programming domain, but 'write efficient code' is generic enough to overlap with other programming-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
7%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a generic, boilerplate-heavy outline that provides no concrete, executable guidance for C programming. It lists topics and principles Claude already knows without adding any novel, actionable content — no code examples, no specific commands, no validation workflows. The content would need a complete rewrite to be useful as a skill.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable C code examples demonstrating key patterns (e.g., a malloc/free pattern with error checking, a proper Makefile with recommended flags)
Replace the abstract 'Approach' list with a clear workflow: write code → compile with warnings → run clang-tidy → test with CUnit → validate with valgrind, including actual commands for each step
Remove boilerplate sections ('Use this skill when', 'Do not use this skill when', 'Limitations') and the focus areas list — Claude already knows these concepts
Either provide the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` bundle file or inline the essential content that would have been there
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is padded with boilerplate sections ("Use this skill when", "Do not use this skill when", "Limitations") that add no value for Claude. The focus areas list things Claude already knows well (memory management, pointer arithmetic, pthreads). The 'Approach' section states obvious best practices like 'no memory leaks' and 'check all return values' that Claude inherently understands. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is no executable code, no concrete commands, no specific examples. Everything is abstract guidance like 'use static analysis tools' and 'profile before optimizing' without showing how. The skill describes rather than instructs — it reads like a topic outline rather than actionable instructions. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no clear multi-step workflow with sequencing or validation checkpoints. The 'Approach' section lists principles rather than steps. There's no feedback loop for compilation, testing, or memory validation despite mentioning valgrind. The 'Output' section lists deliverables but not how to produce or verify them. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | There is a reference to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed examples, which shows some intent for progressive disclosure. However, no bundle files exist to support this reference, and the main content itself is poorly organized with generic boilerplate sections rather than a clear overview-to-detail structure. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
- Commit
8854d4e
- 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.