agentleFS
tethertotetherto/qvac/.agents/skills/cpp-string-api-review/SKILL.md

cpp-string-api-review

Skill697 starsChanged 18 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Review C++ changes for string parameter and call-site efficiency conventions (`std::string_view`, `std::string&&`, `const std::string&`, `const char*`, and TransparentStringMap lookup). Use when reviewing C++ code, refactoring addon interfaces, or invoking /cpp-string-api-review.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    read-only const std::string& where std::string_view is sufficient,

    line 38
  2. Distinctive:

    Check for requirement propagation ("requirements bubble up"):

    line 43
  3. Very specific:

    if a wrapper takes std::string_view but must call a const std::string& API, surface the trade-off and propose the correct boundary.

    line 44
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer explicit ownership intent over hidden conversions.

    line 73
  5. Very specific:

    Prefer leaf-first migration to std::string_view through call chains.

    line 74
  6. Very specific:

    If downstream requires const std::string&, do not hide that cost behind wrapper layers.

    line 75

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

C++ String API Review

Review C++ code for string API convention compliance and produce actionable fixes.

When to use this skill

Use when:

  • User asks for a review of C++ string parameter choices.
  • User asks to migrate existing code toward string API conventions.
  • User invokes /cpp-string-api-review.

Do NOT use for:

  • Non-C++ changes.
  • Broad performance review unrelated to string interfaces.

Scope and source of truth

  • Primary reference: docs/conventions/string-api-conventions.md
  • Supporting implementation reference: packages/inference-addon-cpp/src/inference-addon-cpp/TransparentStringMap.hpp

Review workflow

  1. Identify touched C++ files (*.h, *.hpp, *.cc, *.cpp, *.cxx) in scope.
  2. Inspect string parameters and classify each as:
    • read-only non-owning (std::string_view),
    • sink ownership transfer (std::string&&),
    • downstream compatibility (const std::string&),
    • C boundary (const char*).
  3. Flag cost/correctness issues:
    • read-only const std::string& where std::string_view is sufficient,
    • sink modeled as const std::string& + copy instead of std::string&& + move,
    • hidden temporary conversions (std::string{view}) on hot paths,
    • unsafe view.data() usage where null termination is not guaranteed,
    • avoidable temporary key materialization in map lookups.
  4. Check for requirement propagation ("requirements bubble up"):
    • if a wrapper takes std::string_view but must call a const std::string& API, surface the trade-off and propose the correct boundary.
  5. Produce findings grouped by severity:
    • High: correctness/lifetime/null-termination issues,
    • Medium: hidden alloc/copy churn in common paths,
    • Low: style/consistency improvements.
  6. Propose precise edits with before/after snippets. Only apply code changes after explicit user confirmation.

Output format

Use this structure:

## C++ String API Review

### Findings
- [High|Medium|Low] <short title> — <file/symbol>
  - Why it matters: <cost/correctness impact>
  - Suggested change: <concise fix>

### Recommended edits
1. <edit 1>
2. <edit 2>

### Notes
- <boundary trade-offs, if any>

Quick heuristics

  • Prefer explicit ownership intent over hidden conversions.
  • Prefer leaf-first migration to std::string_view through call chains.
  • If downstream requires const std::string&, do not hide that cost behind wrapper layers.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.