CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

azure-servicebus-dotnet

Azure Service Bus SDK for .NET. Enterprise messaging with queues, topics, subscriptions, and sessions.

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/azure-servicebus-dotnet/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%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 strong, highly actionable reference whose executable code examples cover the SDK comprehensively, undermined by absent validation for batch and destructive operations, some time-sensitive fluff (version pin, tautological 'When to Use'), and a monolithic structure that inlines deep reference material instead of splitting it into bundled files. Relatively minor fixes — checkpoint guidance and file splitting — would raise it considerably.

Suggestions

Add validation and failure-path guidance for batch and destructive operations: handle TryAddMessage returning false, wrap batch-receive completion in error handling, and verify an entity exists before DeleteQueueAsync.

Move time-sensitive and deep-reference content out of the main flow: drop or relocate the 'Current Version: v7.20.1' pin, and split Administration CRUD, Cross-Entity Transactions, and the Key Types table into reference files linked one level deep.

Delete the tautological 'When to Use' section ('This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview'), which adds tokens without information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean, code-first reference material, but it includes time-sensitive details ('Current Version: v7.20.1') outside any old-patterns/deprecated section, a tautological filler section ('This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview'), and redundant comments like '// Message added successfully' after each TryAddMessage. It is tighter than the padded verbosity of a 2, but not the trimmed efficiency of a 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Every workflow ships complete, executable C# with real API calls (CreateSender/SendMessageAsync, CreateMessageBatchAsync/TryAddMessage, AcceptNextSessionAsync, SubQueue.DeadLetter, ServiceBusAdministrationClient CRUD, TransactionScope), covering the common cases copy-paste ready. Settlement options and error handling with ServiceBusFailureReason are also concretely demonstrated.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The nine core workflows are clearly numbered and individually sequenced, but batch operations lack validation checkpoints — the TryAddMessage examples ignore the false-return path (message too large for batch) and the batch-receive loop completes messages without failure handling — and the destructive 'DeleteQueueAsync' runs with no pre-check, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the feedback-loop guideline. Not 2 because sequence and structure are genuinely clear; not 4 because the missing batch/destructive validation is a material checkpoint gap the guidelines explicitly penalize.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill has good section headers but is a ~330-line monolithic file with no bundle files at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist); the Key Types table, Administration CRUD, and Cross-Entity Transactions sections read like reference material that belongs in separate one-level-deep files. It has better organization than the header-less inline dump of a 2, but the large inlined API reference matches the 3 anchor and lacks the well-signaled external references of a 4.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

65%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.

A crisp, domain-specific description that clearly identifies the product and its messaging entities, but it describes no concrete actions and completely lacks trigger guidance for when to invoke the skill. Adding a 'Use when...' clause and replacing the generic 'Enterprise messaging' with specific verbs would lift it substantially.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g., 'Use when working with Azure Service Bus in .NET (C#), sending or receiving messages via queues, topics, or subscriptions'.

Replace the generic 'Enterprise messaging' with concrete verbs such as 'Send, receive, settle, dead-letter, and manage messages' to sharpen capability specificity.

Include common synonyms and variants users might say (e.g., 'message broker', 'publish/subscribe', 'C#') to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('Azure Service Bus SDK for .NET') and enumerates concrete entities ('queues, topics, subscriptions, and sessions'), but the only stated action is the generic 'Enterprise messaging' with no concrete verbs like send, receive, or settle. It exceeds the minimal/generic naming of a 2 ('Enterprise messaging' alone names no specifics of the entity model) but falls short of 4, which requires several specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (an Azure Service Bus SDK for .NET doing enterprise messaging over those entities), but a 'when to use' clause is entirely absent, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because no trigger guidance exists even implicitly, and not 2 because the 'what' half is concrete and specific.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Azure Service Bus', 'queues', 'topics', 'subscriptions', 'sessions', and '.NET' are terms users would naturally say when needing this skill. A few natural variants are missing (e.g., 'message broker', 'publish/subscribe', 'AMQP', 'C#'), keeping it below a 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Azure Service Bus SDK for .NET' names a specific product with a clear niche and distinct triggers; it is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. The only theoretical overlap is with sibling Azure messaging SDKs (Event Hubs, Event Grid), which the explicit 'Service Bus' naming already disambiguates.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

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-servicebus-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.