Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add davidYichengWei/agentic-engineering-framework --skill bp-coding-best-practicesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/davidYichengWei/agentic-engineering-frameworkWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/davidyichengwei/agentic-engineering-framework/bp-coding-best-practices)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/davidyichengwei/agentic-engineering-framework/bp-coding-best-practices"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davidyichengwei/agentic-engineering-framework/bp-coding-best-practices/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/davidyichengwei/agentic-engineering-framework/bp-coding-best-practices"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davidyichengwei/agentic-engineering-framework/bp-coding-best-practices.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00045 | $0.01213 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00243 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
bp-coding-best-practices scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
通用编码最佳实践
设计原则（SOLID、设计模式）：参见 bp-component-design Skill
特定语言/模块规范：参见相应的 standards skills
命名
| 原则 | 说明 |
|---|---|
| 自解释 | retryCount 而非 n |
| 无魔法数字 | const int SECONDS_IN_DAY = 86400; |
| 布尔命名 | isValid, hasAccess（问题形式） |
| 作用域匹配 | 小作用域可短（i），大作用域要描述性 |
函数设计
| 原则 | 说明 |
|---|---|
| 单一职责 | 一个函数做一件事；名字需要 "And" 说明做太多了 |
| 参数精简 | 超过 3-4 个参数 → 考虑结构体封装 |
| const 正确 | 不修改的参数标 const，防止意外修改 |
控制流
Guard Clause：失败情况先处理并返回，主逻辑保持左对齐
Early Return：显式采用 early return 编程范式，尽量将可 early return 的检查前置。
// ❌ 深层嵌套
if (order != nullptr) {
if (order->isValid()) {
if (order->hasItems()) {
// main logic
}
}
}
// ✅ Guard Clause
if (order == nullptr) return;
if (!order->isValid()) return;
if (!order->hasItems()) return;
// main logic (not nested)
资源安全
| 原则 | 说明 |
|---|---|
| RAII | 资源生命周期绑定对象生命周期，避免手动清理分散在多条路径 |
| 所有权显式 | 区分 owner 与 borrower，避免隐式转移所有权 |
| 窄作用域 | 变量声明靠近首次使用，减少悬空与误用概率 |
跨语言场景统一要求：新增分支/返回路径时，必须检查资源契约是否闭环（释放类资源 + 触发类资源）。
新增返回路径的契约检查
当新增 return、early exit 或新分支时，必须逐一检查函数入口处获取的所有"契约性资源"。
契约性资源：函数持有但不拥有、需要在特定时机交还/触发的资源：
- Closure/Callback（需要 Run）
- 锁（需要 Unlock）
- 引用计数（需要 Release）
- 事务上下文（需要 Commit/Rollback/清理）
- 幂等标记/Nonce（需要 Complete）
- 注册到外部管理器的对象（需要 Remove/Unregister）
检查方法：
- 识别：在函数开头找所有"获取但需要交还"的东西
- 对照：找一个功能相似的现有返回路径，逐行对比它处理了哪些资源
- 分类：这个新路径是成功、失败、还是新的第三种状态？现有 ownership 注释是否覆盖？
| ❌ 反例 | ✅ 正例 |
|---|---|
| 新分支只清理了数据结构，忘了 callback 的执行契约 | 对照已有的 early return 路径，发现它调用了 callback->Run()，新路径也需要 |
| 假设"返回成功后调用方会处理 closure" | 检查调用方逻辑，确认 closure 执行责任的真实归属 |
| 只关注"要释放什么"，忽略"要触发什么" | 同时检查释放类资源（锁、内存）和触发类资源（回调、事件） |
注释
| 场景 | 做法 |
|---|---|
| 何时写 | 仅当意图不明显时；复杂算法；公共 API |
| 写什么 | Why（为什么这样做），不是 What（做了什么） |
| TODO | 包含上下文和负责人 |
// ❌ 复述代码
// Increment i by 1
++i;
// ✅ 解释意图
// Skip index 0 because it is the sentinel slot.
for (size_t i = 1; i < slots.size(); ++i) { ... }
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 128 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 0387e364e3f1
bp-coding-best-practices is a skill published in the GitHub repository davidYichengWei/agentic-engineering-framework (159 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,213 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…