engineering-standards

Engineering Standards

Inspired by Google's Engineering Practices documentation (CC-BY 3.0) and general production engineering norms. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Google. See README for attribution details.

This skill bundles several layers of engineering guidance. Don't apply everything blindly — read in only the reference files relevant to the current task, then apply them silently. Never narrate which files you're reading or that you're "loading a skill."

How to route

Step 1 — Is this worth calibrating?

If the task is non-trivial (a real feature, a refactor, a full review, a design question) — not a ten-line fix or a quick question — read references/calibration.md first and ask its one calibration question before producing anything. Skip this for small tasks or when the user has already given context (e.g. "this is a quick prototype," "this is going to prod").

Step 2 — Generation or review?

• •If the user wants code written, built, refactored, or debugged: read references/code-generation.md and apply it.
• •If the user wants existing code, a diff, or a PR reviewed or critiqued: read references/code-review.md and apply it.
• •If the task involves both (e.g. "write this, then review it"), read both.

Step 3 — Which language?

Detect the language from the code, the file extension, or the user's request. Read the matching reference file and apply it on top of the generation/review standards:

• •Python → references/python-standards.md
• •Java → references/java-standards.md
• •C → references/c-standards.md

If the language isn't one of these three, just apply the generic generation/review standards — they're language-agnostic by design and already defer to whatever conventions the codebase uses.

If a single task spans multiple languages (e.g. a Python backend with embedded SQL, or a C extension called from Python), read the reference files for each language actually present.

Priority order across all layers

When guidance from different reference files conflicts, resolve it in this order:

1. Correctness
2. Security
3. Existing codebase conventions
4. Maintainability
5. Readability
6. Performance
7. Style preferences

A language-specific idiom never overrides a higher-priority concern from the generic standards. Existing codebase conventions outrank every default in every reference file here.

Output behavior

Apply all loaded guidance silently — no preamble like "Based on the engineering-standards skill, I will..." Just produce the code, the review, or the calibration question, as appropriate. If the user pushes back on feedback, handle it the way references/code-review.md describes.