tdg-personal/cpp-coding-standards
C++ coding standards based on the C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io). Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code to enforce modern, safe, and idiomatic practices.
83
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid skill description with clear 'what' and 'when' clauses, good trigger terms, and strong distinctiveness through the specific C++ Core Guidelines reference. Its main weakness is that it could be more specific about the concrete actions or standards it enforces (e.g., RAII, smart pointers, type safety rules) rather than broadly stating 'modern, safe, and idiomatic practices.'
Suggestions
Add specific concrete capabilities such as 'Enforces RAII, smart pointer usage, const correctness, type safety, and resource management patterns' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (C++ coding standards) and references the C++ Core Guidelines, but doesn't list specific concrete actions beyond 'writing, reviewing, or refactoring.' It lacks detail on what specific standards or practices are enforced (e.g., RAII, smart pointers, const correctness). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (C++ coding standards based on C++ Core Guidelines) and 'when' (Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code). The explicit 'Use when...' clause with specific trigger scenarios is present. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'C++', 'coding standards', 'C++ Core Guidelines', 'writing', 'reviewing', 'refactoring', 'modern', 'safe', 'idiomatic'. Users asking about C++ best practices or code review would naturally use these terms. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the specific reference to C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io) and the focus on C++ specifically. Unlikely to conflict with general coding skills or other language-specific skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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 high-quality, comprehensive C++ coding standards reference with excellent actionability through complete code examples and a useful final checklist. Its main weakness is length — at 500+ lines it's a heavy context load, and much of the content (rule summary tables, anti-pattern lists) covers knowledge Claude likely already has. The content would benefit from splitting detailed sections into referenced sub-files to reduce the token footprint of the main skill.
Suggestions
Split detailed per-topic sections (Classes, Resource Management, Concurrency, Templates, etc.) into separate referenced files, keeping only the cross-cutting principles, quick examples, and checklist in the main SKILL.md.
Trim rule summary tables to only the most non-obvious or frequently violated rules — Claude already knows standard C++ best practices and doesn't need every rule enumerated.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive and well-organized, but quite lengthy (~500+ lines). Many of the rule tables and anti-pattern lists explain things Claude already knows about C++. The cross-cutting principles section and 'When to Use/NOT to Use' sections add marginal value. However, the code examples are tight and the rule reference tables are efficient for lookup. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Every section includes fully executable, copy-paste-ready C++ code examples with clear DO/DON'T patterns. The code is complete (not pseudocode), includes proper includes, and demonstrates real patterns like RAII FileHandle, ThreadSafeQueue, and concept-constrained templates. The final checklist is directly actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is primarily a coding standards/style guide rather than a multi-step workflow, so the single-task exemption applies. The content is clearly sequenced by topic area, each section has a consistent structure (rules table → good examples → anti-patterns), and the final checklist serves as a validation checkpoint before completing C++ work. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic document with all guidelines inline rather than split across files. For a skill this large, the detailed code examples for each section (Classes, Resource Management, Concurrency, etc.) could be referenced as separate files. The external link to isocpp.github.io is good, but no internal file references are used to manage the substantial content volume. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (724 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents