AD clean-code
Pragmatic coding standards for writing clean, maintainable code — naming, functions, structure, anti-patterns, and pre-edit safety checks. Use when writing new code, refactoring existing code, reviewing code quality, or establishing coding standards.
Pragmatic coding standards for writing clean, maintainable code — naming, functions, structure, anti-patterns, and pre-edit safety checks.
As a process D 49/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
The same skill appears in 1 more place: ClawHub
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 49/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (clean-code) differs from the folder (clean-code-review)
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 8 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2440 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 250: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 8 items
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.