coding-standards
C++20 coding standards, naming conventions, concepts, ranges, constexpr, file organization, and Doxygen documentation practices for high-performance computing.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:ysyecust/everything-claude-code --skill coding-standards70
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
47%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 effectively lists relevant C++20 technical terms that users would naturally mention, providing good keyword coverage. However, it reads as a topic list rather than describing concrete actions Claude can perform, and critically lacks any 'Use when...' guidance to help Claude know when to select this skill over others.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause specifying triggers like 'when writing C++20 code', 'when asking about modern C++ best practices', or 'when working on HPC projects'
Convert topic list to action-oriented language: 'Applies C++20 coding standards, enforces naming conventions, implements concepts and ranges, optimizes with constexpr, and generates Doxygen documentation'
Clarify the scope to reduce overlap: specify if this is for code review, new code generation, refactoring legacy code, or all of the above
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (C++20) and lists several specific areas (concepts, ranges, constexpr, Doxygen), but these are feature categories rather than concrete actions like 'write', 'refactor', or 'review'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what topics it covers but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps this at 2, but the 'what' is also weak (topics vs actions), warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'C++20', 'naming conventions', 'concepts', 'ranges', 'constexpr', 'Doxygen', 'high-performance computing' are all terms developers naturally use when seeking this guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The C++20 focus and HPC context provide some distinction, but 'coding standards' and 'naming conventions' are generic enough to potentially overlap with other C++ or general coding style skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid C++20 coding standards reference with excellent actionable code examples and clear organization. The main weaknesses are some unnecessary explanatory text in the principles section that Claude doesn't need, and the monolithic structure that could benefit from progressive disclosure to separate reference files for detailed topics.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly condense the 'Code Quality Principles' section—Claude already understands KISS, DRY, YAGNI, and readability principles.
Consider splitting detailed sections (Doxygen Documentation, Code Smell Detection) into separate reference files with links from the main SKILL.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient with good code examples, but includes some unnecessary preamble (e.g., 'Code is read more than written', 'Simplest solution that works') that Claude already knows. The principles section could be trimmed significantly. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Excellent concrete, executable code examples throughout. Every section provides copy-paste ready C++20 code with clear patterns for concepts, ranges, constexpr, naming conventions, and file organization. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | For a coding standards skill, this is appropriately structured. It's not a multi-step process requiring validation checkpoints—it's a reference document with clear categories and patterns. The Code Smell Detection section effectively shows BAD/GOOD patterns. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but it's a monolithic document that could benefit from splitting detailed sections (like Doxygen documentation or Code Smell Detection) into separate reference files. No external references are provided. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
75%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 12 / 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_steps | No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow | Warning |
Total | 12 / 16 Passed | |
- 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.