CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

dotnet-vertical-slice

Scaffolding guide for building vertical slice features in FinanceHub (.NET 10), including Use Cases, Minimal API endpoints, Command/Query handlers, FluentValidation, and financial reconciliation endpoints.

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/dotnet-vertical-slice/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body delivers a highly actionable, end-to-end worked example with complete executable code and a real verification checklist, organized in clearly labeled sections. Its main weaknesses are token weight from repeated namespaces and a long inline business-logic example that could be trimmed or split into a reference file, plus validation that is a final checklist rather than inline checkpoints.

Suggestions

Trim the handler example to a skeleton (keep constructor, logging, and one matching branch) and move the full reconciliation logic to a reference file to reduce token cost.

Remove the repeated namespace declaration from each code block since it is identical across all four examples.

Add inline validation checkpoints between steps (e.g. 'run dotnet build after creating the files before wiring the endpoint') instead of only a final checklist.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly project-specific content Claude cannot infer (directory conventions, record shapes, matching rules), but it carries unnecessary weight: every code block repeats the full namespace declaration, and the handler includes roughly 60 lines of reconciliation business logic (foreach matching loops, discrepancy construction) that illustrates the pattern but could be trimmed to a skeleton. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than 4, where only minor trimming would be needed.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides four complete, executable C# files (command records, validator, handler, Minimal API endpoint mapping) plus concrete verification commands ('dotnet build', 'dotnet test', 'WebApplicationFactory<Program>' in a named test path). The worked reconciliation example is copy-paste ready within the project context and covers the common scaffolding case end-to-end, matching the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready; covers the common cases' anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence (define command → validate → handler → endpoint) is followed by a verification checklist with explicit test steps ('Validator Unit Tests', 'Integration Test', 'dotnet build and dotnet test'). This matches 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' — validation sits at the end as a checklist rather than as inline checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops between steps, so it does not reach the anchor 5 example's validate-fix-retry structure.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so the skill is a single file with well-labeled sections (directory conventions, step-by-step workflow, domain guidelines, verification checklist) that is easy to navigate. It fits 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' — the full reconciliation worked example and its ~90-line handler could be moved to a reference file to keep SKILL.md as an overview, which keeps it below the well-signaled one-level-deep-references structure of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

62%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description clearly states what the skill does with a well-scoped, codebase-specific niche and concrete component names, but it lacks any 'Use when...' trigger guidance and misses several natural keyword variations (CQRS, MediatR, C#, scaffolding a new feature). Distinctiveness is strong due to the FinanceHub scoping.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when adding a new feature, use case, or endpoint to a FinanceHub microservice, or when the user mentions vertical slices, CQRS, or transaction reconciliation.'

Include natural trigger-term variations users would actually say, such as 'CQRS', 'MediatR', 'C#', 'scaffold a new feature', and 'reconcile transactions', to improve trigger-term coverage.

Mention the verification/test workflow (e.g. 'and verifying with dotnet build/test') to round out capability coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("building vertical slice features in FinanceHub (.NET 10)") and lists several concrete components ("Use Cases, Minimal API endpoints, Command/Query handlers, FluentValidation, and financial reconciliation endpoints"), which matches the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because coverage gaps exist (no mention of validation rules, testing, or scaffolding commands); not 3 because it goes well beyond 1-2 concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' ("Scaffolding guide for building vertical slice features... including Use Cases, Minimal API endpoints, Command/Query handlers, FluentValidation...") but no 'when' — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely weak.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant keywords like "vertical slice", "FluentValidation", and "financial reconciliation" but is missing common natural variations a user would say, such as "CQRS", "MediatR", "C#", "scaffold a new feature", or "add a use case". This matches the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' anchor rather than 4, which expects good coverage with only a few natural terms missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is scoped to a specific codebase ("FinanceHub") with distinctive terms ("vertical slice", "Command/Query handlers", "financial reconciliation endpoints") that create a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against other skills. Not 4 because the FinanceHub scoping and reconciliation specificity leave virtually no overlap with closely related skills.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

JoseMD12/finance-hub

Path

.agents/skills/dotnet-vertical-slice/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.