CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

azure-resource-manager-durabletask-dotnet

Azure Resource Manager SDK for Durable Task Scheduler in .NET.

Quality

61%

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 ./skills/azure-resource-manager-durabletask-dotnet/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%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.

A highly actionable, well-organized API reference whose main weaknesses are its monolithic size (everything inlined in SKILL.md with no reference files), a redundant complete example, and missing validation around destructive delete operations. The code quality is strong; the structure wastes context budget.

Suggestions

Move the Key Types Reference table, the private-endpoint (v1.1.0+) details, and the Related SDKs table into separate reference files (e.g. references/types.md, references/networking.md) and link them from concise overview sections — this would bring progressive_disclosure toward anchor 4/5 and cut significant tokens.

Add explicit validation around destructive operations: before deleting, verify the scheduler/task hub exists and confirm no dependent task hubs remain (the 'schedulers with task hubs cannot be deleted' pitfall), and catch/handle RequestFailedException on delete — this lifts the workflow_clarity cap of 3.

Delete or drastically shrink the 'Complete Example' section (it duplicates Core Workflow sections 1, 3, and 7) and remove the filler 'When to Use' section; fill in real retention-policy property values instead of the '// Configure retention settings' placeholder.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The prose is lean and code-first with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but there is notable redundancy: the 'Complete Example' repeats sections 1–3 nearly verbatim (~50 lines), a filler 'When to Use' section adds nothing, and version dates ('Stable v1.1.0 (2026-03-12)') sit outside any deprecated/old-patterns section. Mostly efficient but needs tightening, matching anchor 3 rather than 2 because the padding is structural repetition rather than pervasive over-explanation.

3 / 5

Actionability

Nearly all guidance is copy-paste-ready C# with real types (DurableTaskSchedulerData, CreateOrUpdateAsync, RequestFailedException handling), plus install commands and env vars. It scores 4 rather than 5 because the retention-policy example ships an empty Properties object with only '// Configure retention settings' — a placeholder where executable property values should be — leaving one common case not concretely covered.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The nine numbered Core Workflow steps are clearly sequenced with per-step purpose comments, and delete-ordering guidance plus a try/catch error-handling section give some checkpoints. However, the destructive delete operations (task hub, scheduler) have no explicit validation or verification steps (e.g. confirming the resource exists or verifying deletion succeeded with recovery handling), which per the rubric caps workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with clear headers, but it is a ~430-line monolith with no bundle files at all: the 20-row Key Types table, private-endpoint connection details, and the Related SDKs table are all inlined content that clearly belongs in separate reference files. This matches anchor 3 ('content that should be separate is inline' with some structure); it is not 4 because nothing is split out despite the size far exceeding the under-50-line simple-skill exception.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 precisely identifies the skill's niche but is a bare domain statement: no concrete capabilities, no 'use when' trigger guidance, and no disambiguation from the sibling data-plane SDK. It would benefit most from adding explicit capability verbs and a trigger clause.

Suggestions

Add concrete capability verbs to the description, e.g. 'Create and manage Durable Task Scheduler resources, task hubs, retention policies, and private endpoint connections' — this would lift specificity from anchor 2 toward anchor 4.

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when provisioning or managing Azure Durable Task Scheduler resources via ARM in .NET (C#), not for running orchestrations (that is the data-plane SDK).' — this addresses the missing 'when' (currently capping completeness at 3) and disambiguates from the data-plane sibling.

Include natural trigger-term variations users would say: 'task hub', 'provision', 'C#', 'management plane', 'ARM/Bicep deployment'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain precisely ("Azure Resource Manager SDK for Durable Task Scheduler in .NET") but states no concrete actions — capabilities like creating schedulers, task hubs, or retention policies appear only in the body, not the description. This matches the anchor for naming a domain with minimal/generic actions, and falls short of anchor 3 because no concrete capability verbs are listed.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear at the identity level (which SDK this is) but the 'when' is entirely absent — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3. It is not a 2 because the 'what' is not vague; it is not a 4 because 'when' is not present even weakly.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Durable Task Scheduler", "Azure Resource Manager", and ".NET" are natural, relevant keywords a user would say, but common variations are missing: "task hub", "provision", "C#", "management plane". Coverage is relevant but not broad enough for anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche (ARM management-plane SDK for one specific Azure service) with minimal generic conflict risk. It scores 4 rather than 5 because it does not disambiguate from the closely related data-plane SDK (Microsoft.DurableTask.Client.AzureManaged), leaving minor overlap risk with that sibling skill.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Path

skills/azure-resource-manager-durabletask-dotnet/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.