No there aren't any standards and as someone noted, there isn't a consensus. Orbs are not like an on/off switch, i.e. at 8 degrees it works at 9 it doesn't. That's wrong. Also the idea that aspects have orbs is also, if not absolutely wrong, at least it isn't what was intended.
First, the consensus is that the tighter the orb the more powerful its influence. So even if you believe in wide orbs, a square at 10 degrees separation is less influential than one at 2 degrees. However, if the planets are both in angles and 10 degrees apart they will be more influential than a square of planets in cadent houses that are say 5 or 6 degrees apart because of the house position.
Applying aspects tend to be stronger than separating aspects.
There is a small stink over whether "out-of-sign" aspects are valid. Mars in Leo and Jupiter in Scorpio are in sign aspects since they are both in fixed signs and fixed signs are 90 degrees apart. But if Mars is at 29 Leo and Jupiter is at 2 Sagittarius, they are 87 degrees apart (3 degree orb) but Mars is in a fixed sign and Jupiter in a mutable one. This is an out-of-sign square and some astrologers say it isn't valid, others say it is. It depends on whether the astrologer thinks the number of degrees are what makes the aspect regardless of signs or the astrologer says the signs are what make the aspect.
With the loss of importance of essential dignity, astrologers needed something to fill it's place and aspects became that something. Compared to old astrology, moderns are slaphappy with aspects. Old astrologers considered them last. Moderns consider them first. A lot of that depends on what it is that aspects are supposedly doing. That's for another time.
Originally orbs were a function of the planet not the kind of aspect.Each planet had an orb, let's say one had 20 degrees and the other had 10. Half that orb is it's "moiety." So each planet above has a moiety of 10 and 5 respectively. When the moieties "touched," i.e. the planets were within the sum of the moieties regardless of aspect, the aspect was within orb. So if Planet A was 15 degrees from planet B, they were within each other's moiety and the aspect was in force. But suppose Planet A was 14 degrees from a planet with a 6 degree orb - 3 degree moiety. They would not be in aspect despite being closer than the previous example. Orbs were based on the influence of the planet, not the importance of the aspect.
The original aspects were sextile, square, trine, and opposition. The conjunction, technically, is not an aspect, but everyone uses the word "aspect" to describe it. It's easier than saying "aspects and conjunctions," although that's what the old texts do. Kepler later added the "minor" aspects that were based on math not signs. Then John Addy took that one step farther and developed astrological "harmonics," a method that never quite caught on due to it's complexity, but that showed continuing promise up until Addy's untimely death. Few, if any, have tried to pick up where he left off and almost no one is left who can teach it. It's complicated as hell. Astrologers with a musical background seem to grasp it pretty quickly. The rest of us scratch our heads.