coding-standards

Baseline cross-project coding conventions for naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review. Use detailed frontend or backend skills for framework-specific patterns.

Quality

60%

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 ./.agents/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 rich with concrete, executable PASS/FAIL examples and is well-organized by topic, but it is monolithic, re-explains basic principles Claude already knows, and lacks any multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints. Splitting framework-specific sections into reference files would improve both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the React Best Practices, API Design Standards, and Performance sections into separate reference files (e.g., references/react.md, references/api-design.md) and summarize them inline, improving both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Cut the "Code Quality Principles" KISS/DRY/YAGNI/Readability definitions — Claude already knows these — and keep only the project-specific conventions that differ from defaults.

Add a short "Review workflow" section with sequenced steps and a validation checkpoint (e.g., review naming -> immutability -> error handling -> smells) to raise workflow clarity for code-quality review tasks.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Most code examples earn their place, but the "Code Quality Principles" section re-explains KISS/DRY/YAGNI/Readability — concepts Claude already knows — and several PASS/GOOD comments restate the obvious, so it is mostly efficient with padded sections that could be trimmed.	3 / 5
Actionability	Abundant concrete, executable PASS/FAIL code examples cover the common cases, but several use `// Implementation` placeholders and are illustrative patterns rather than fully copy-paste-ready programs, leaving minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	"When to Activate" and "Scope Boundaries" give application context and the content is well-sectioned, but this is a reference skill with no multi-step process or validation checkpoints, so sequencing is only weakly present.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the skill is a monolithic ~540-line SKILL.md; section headers and clearly signaled sibling-skill references provide some structure, but React/API/performance content that could live in separate reference files is inlined.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 clearly states what the skill covers and draws useful boundaries against sibling skills, but it lacks an explicit "Use when..." activation clause, capping completeness. Trigger terms and specificity are solid but not exhaustive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause naming concrete situations (e.g., 'Use when starting a new project, reviewing code for maintainability, or enforcing naming/immutability conventions').

Include a few more natural trigger synonyms users might say (e.g., 'linting', 'formatting', 'code style') to broaden trigger coverage.

Sharpen distinctiveness by framing the baseline as the cross-project floor that defers to narrower skills, reducing perceived overlap with frontend-patterns/backend-patterns.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete concerns — "naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review" — beyond the generic "coding conventions" domain, though it stops short of comprehensive coverage of all review dimensions.	4 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is clear (baseline cross-project coding conventions), but there is no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause — the second sentence is boundary/redirect guidance rather than activation triggers, so completeness caps at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms a user would say ("naming", "readability", "immutability", "code-quality review", "coding conventions") are present with good coverage, but a few common synonyms are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Baseline cross-project coding conventions" is inherently broad and overlaps with the named frontend/backend skills; the explicit redirect to those skills reduces conflict but the baseline scope still carries overlap risk.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 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
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (550 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: ysyecust/everything-claude-code
Path: .agents/skills/coding-standards/SKILL.md
Commit: a9cbecb

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.