coding-standards

适用于TypeScript、JavaScript、React和Node.js开发的通用编码标准、最佳实践和模式。

1.17x

Quality

51%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

93%

1.17x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./docs/zh-CN/skills/coding-standards/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%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 body is a well-structured, highly actionable standards reference with strong GOOD/BAD code examples, though it is verbose in places and explains fundamentals Claude already knows. It is monolithic with no progressive disclosure into bundle files despite its length.

Suggestions

Trim explanations of well-known principles (KISS/DRY/YAGNI, 'code is read more than written') and the closing motivational line to tighten token efficiency.

Split large sections (React best practices, API design, testing standards) into reference files under references/ and link to them from SKILL.md for progressive disclosure.

Complete the placeholder examples (e.g. getMarket, searchMarkets) so every code block is fully executable rather than '// Implementation'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly concrete GOOD/BAD code pairs, but it explains KISS/DRY/YAGNI and '代码被阅读的次数远多于被编写的次数' (concepts Claude already knows) and closes with a motivational line. This is 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation that could be tightened' rather than the lean 4.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides concrete, copy-paste-ready TypeScript/React examples across naming, immutability, hooks, API design, and testing, covering common cases well. It is not a 5 because several examples use '// Implementation' placeholders rather than complete executable code.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	This is a reference/standards document, not a multi-step process, so there is no sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints. There are no destructive/batch operations that would cap it lower, and the section organization is clear, but the absence of any stepwise sequence fits 3 best.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized with headers, but the file is a monolithic 537 lines with no references/scripts/assets bundle, and content that could live in separate files (React practices, API design, testing) is all inlined. This matches 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

45%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 a clear domain and stack but stays at the level of abstract categories without concrete actions or any 'when to use' trigger guidance. It is distinguishable yet generic enough to risk overlap with sibling skills.

Suggestions

Add a concrete action list, e.g. 'Enforces naming, immutability, error-handling, and testing conventions...'.

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases (e.g. 'Use when reviewing code quality, refactoring, or onboarding contributors').

Include synonyms and specific terms users say (linting, formatting, type safety, code review) to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ("TypeScript、JavaScript、React和Node.js开发") but only offers abstract categories ("通用编码标准、最佳实践和模式") with no concrete actions. It fits the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' and not 3, since no concrete capability is enumerated.	2 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill provides (coding standards/best practices/patterns for the stack) but has no 'when'/'Use when...' guidance at all, so per the rubric's completeness cap it cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms users would say are present (the stack names plus "编码标准" and "最佳实践"), but synonyms, file extensions, and explicit trigger phrases are missing. This matches 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than the comprehensive coverage of a 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Naming a specific stack narrows the niche, but '通用编码标准' (general coding standards) is a broad category that overlaps with many related skills, fitting 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (538 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: xu-xiang/everything-claude-code-zh
Path: docs/zh-CN/skills/coding-standards/SKILL.md
Commit: dfbf946

Reviewed: 5 days 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.