CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

67

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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 content is a lean, well-structured review constitution with clear sequencing and mostly actionable guidance. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: the body repeatedly references references/*.md, GOTCHAS.md, and templates/phase0-starter.md, but none of these bundle files exist, so the carefully signaled navigation leads nowhere.

Suggestions

Create the missing references/ directory with the referenced files (concurrency.md, error-handling.md, templates.md, performance.md, lifetime.md, rule-map.md) plus GOTCHAS.md and templates/phase0-starter.md, or remove the dangling references from the body.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the review workflow (e.g., 'After running clang-tidy, confirm each finding reproduces before reporting') to strengthen the validate->fix->retry loop.

Trim the few justificatory asides (e.g., 'These come from real model mistakes, not from textbooks') to tighten conciseness toward the 5 anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and directive, avoiding textbook explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but a few minor justificatory asides ('These come from real model mistakes, not from textbooks'; 'It exists to prevent high-impact mistakes that models often miss') could be trimmed, fitting the 4 rather than the spotless 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance is present — ordered priority lists, specific tooling files to discover (compile_commands.json, .clang-tidy), a defined ownership taxonomy, and one explicit command ('Run clang-tidy before eyeballing code') — but most guidance is process direction rather than copy-paste-ready commands, matching the 4 anchor with minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The review process is clearly sequenced via ordered 'Review Priority', 'Tool First', and 'Modernization Discipline' lists with an implicit tool-first checkpoint and safety/style guardrails, but it lacks an explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop, fitting the 4 anchor with minor validation gaps.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The root SKILL.md is well-structured with a 'Condition Loading' section that conditionally routes to references/*.md, GOTCHAS.md, and templates/phase0-starter.md, but none of those referenced files or directories (references/, templates/, GOTCHAS.md) actually exist on disk, so the signaled one-level-deep navigation is broken — better than inlined bulk content (2) but not the well-placed references of 4 or 5.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

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.

The description is strong: it states multiple concrete actions for a well-defined C++ niche with an explicit 'Load when' trigger addressing both what and when. Its only weakness is a jargon-dense enumeration that slightly underuses casual, user-natural trigger phrasing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists five concrete actions ('reviewing, refactoring, modernizing, debugging, or designing') for the clearly-named C++ domain, plus comprehensive technical concerns and outcomes — comprehensive coverage of specific actions, matching the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (review/refactor/modernize/debug/design C++ code) and when via the concrete 'Load when ... where [conditions] may affect [outcomes]' trigger clause, matching the 5 anchor rather than the weaker-when 4 anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural verbs like 'reviewing', 'refactoring', 'debugging' and 'C++ code' are terms users would say, but the dense enumeration ('RAII', 'Core Guidelines compliance') leans jargon-heavy and misses casual synonyms/variations, fitting the 4 rather than 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A sharply defined niche — non-trivial C++ with specific ownership/lifetime/concurrency concerns — is unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill, matching the clear-niche 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 6 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
zhxc372/cpp-ai-constitution
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.