Name: cpp-core-review
Rating: 71.2 (1 reviews)
Author: zhxc372

cpp-core-review

Load when reviewing, refactoring, modernizing, debugging, or designing non-trivial C++ code where ownership, lifetime, RAII, concurrency, templates, interfaces, exceptions, or Core Guidelines compliance may affect correctness, safety, maintainability, or performance.

Quality

87%

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

The canonical home for this skill is cpp-core-review in zhxc372/cpp-ai-constitution

Quality

Content

82%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.

A lean, well-structured review skill with concrete tooling guidance and clear sequenced workflows. The main weakness is progressive disclosure: the skill points to many reference files that are not present in the bundle, and lacks concrete code examples for its ownership taxonomy.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced bundle files (references/concurrency.md, references/lifetime.md, references/templates.md, references/error-handling.md, references/performance.md, references/rule-map.md, GOTCHAS.md, templates/phase0-starter.md) or remove the dangling references so navigation resolves.

Add one-line code snippets illustrating each of the six ownership-classification categories to lift actionability from concrete-but-abstract to copy-paste ready.

Add an explicit validate-fix-retry loop (e.g., after clang-tidy, fix and re-run until clean) to give the workflow a clear feedback checkpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Terse imperatives throughout with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (no 'what is RAII'); every section earns its place, with only a couple of minor justificatory lines that still add value.	5 / 5
Actionability	Concrete named tools (clang-tidy, compile_commands.json, .clang-tidy), an explicit six-category ownership taxonomy, and a severity-bucketed output format, but no code examples illustrating the classification, leaving minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear numbered sequences (Review Priority, Tool First, Modernization Discipline) with guardrail checkpoints like 'Run clang-tidy before eyeballing code', but no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Exemplary condition-gated one-level-deep reference design ('If project has concurrency -> read references/concurrency.md'), but none of the referenced files (references/, templates/, GOTCHAS.md, PROJECT_CONSTITUTION.md) exist in the bundle, leaving navigation dangling.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong, specific, well-triggered description that clearly answers both what the skill does and when to load it, with minimal conflict risk. The only gap is the absence of file-extension synonyms that would push trigger coverage to comprehensive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists five concrete verbs (reviewing, refactoring, modernizing, debugging, designing) plus a comprehensive set of C++ concerns (ownership, lifetime, RAII, concurrency, templates, interfaces, exceptions, Core Guidelines), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	'Load when reviewing, refactoring, modernizing, debugging, or designing non-trivial C++ code where...' gives an explicit trigger clause (what) and the concern/outcome list defines when, cleanly answering both.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural review/refactor/debug C++ keywords and strong domain jargon (RAII, concurrency, templates) are present, but file extensions (.cpp/.h) and synonyms are missing, so it falls short of the comprehensive anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Tightly scoped to non-trivial C++ core review with specific concern triggers, giving it a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 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
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 6 missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: zhxc372/cpp-ai-constitution
Path: .opencode/skills/cpp-core-review/SKILL.md
Commit: f7ba39e

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.