ObjectivesClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) development has evolved over the past decade, with greater emphasis now being placed on transparency, rigor of development, and reporting standards. Our evaluation assesses the quality of the guideline development processes and reporting of selected South African primary care (PC) CPGs. Study Design and SettingCPGs were iteratively identified by two authors, seeking CPGs reflecting common conditions with which patients present in South African PC settings. CPGs could address diagnosis, treatment, or clinical management. Each CPG was independently appraised by two reviewers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guideline REsearch and Evaluation) quality checklist, and the weighted scoring algorithm to calculate scores for the six domains. ResultsWe included 16 CPGs from the National Department of Health and clinical professional associations. Overall, the domains of rigor of development, editorial independence, and applicability had the lowest median scores (0, 4%, and 13%, respectively). Clarity of presentation reported the highest median score (69%), with seven CPGs scoring above 70%. ConclusionsThe methodological quality of the selected South African PC CPGs was generally poor to moderate. Concerted efforts should be made to ensure that transparent, rigorous, and up-to-date evidence assessments are conducted and well reported by CPG developers.