Name: dotnet-architect
Rating: 44 (1 reviews)
Author: administrakt0r

dotnet-architect

Expert .NET backend architect specializing in C#, ASP.NET Core, Entity Framework, Dapper, and enterprise application patterns.

Quality

45%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/dotnet-architect/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is dotnet-architect in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Quality

Content

42%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 is a well-sectioned persona catalog with one strong concrete code-style block, but it is padded with knowledge Claude already has, offers mostly abstract task guidance, and dangles a reference to a non-existent playbook file.

Suggestions

Cut the "Knowledge Base" section and trim the "Capabilities" catalog to the non-obvious decisions an architect needs, leaving only what Claude does not already know.

Fix the broken reference: create `references/implementation-playbook.md` (or correct the path) so the progressive-disclosure pointer resolves, and move the bulk of the catalog there.

Replace the abstract "Response Approach" verbs with a concrete, checkpointed workflow for at least one representative task (e.g. design → implement → validate with tests → review) to raise workflow clarity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The "Knowledge Base" bullets and the long "Capabilities" catalog restate .NET/ASP.NET Core concepts Claude already knows (e.g. "Microsoft .NET documentation and best practices", "Entity Framework Core and Dapper patterns"), making it noticeably verbose with several padded sections rather than the mostly-efficient anchor 3.	2 / 5
Actionability	Most of the body is abstract capability and behavioral-trait lists with a high-level "Response Approach", but the "Code Style Preferences" section provides real, executable C# examples; the executable guidance is incomplete for actually performing architect work, fitting the some-concrete-but-incomplete anchor.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 8-step "Response Approach" gives a recognizable sequence (Understand → Design → Implement → Optimize → ... → Review) but contains no validation checkpoints or feedback loops; it is not anchor 2 because the sequence is coherent, and not 4 because checkpoints are entirely absent.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers provide real structure, but the large capabilities catalog is inlined rather than split out, and the single reference on line 24 (`resources/implementation-playbook.md`) points to a file that does not exist, leaving navigation partly broken; this fits the some-structure-but-could-be-better-organized anchor.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 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 is a concise third-person persona statement that clearly scopes the .NET backend niche, but it lists no concrete actions and lacks any 'Use when...' trigger guidance, capping both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description as concrete actions rather than a persona, e.g. "Designs and reviews .NET backend APIs and microservices..." to lift specificity from 2 to 3-4.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases users say (C#/.NET/ASP.NET Core API design, EF Core or Dapper queries, async performance review).

Include common synonyms users type (dotnet, .NET Core, web API) to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain and specific technologies ("C#, ASP.NET Core, Entity Framework, Dapper, and enterprise application patterns") but states no concrete actions — only "specializing in", so it sits at the domain-named-but-minimal-actions anchor rather than anchor 3 which requires 1-2 concrete actions.	2 / 5
Completeness	It states a clear "what" (an expert .NET backend architect persona) but provides no "when" trigger guidance at all; per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, and it is not anchor 2 because the "what" is concrete rather than vague.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural .NET terms (C#, ASP.NET Core, Entity Framework, Dapper, .NET backend) are present, but they are domain labels with no action verbs, and common variations users say (dotnet, .NET Core, web API) are missing, fitting the "some relevant keywords but missing variations" anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The .NET backend niche is clearly scoped and distinguishable from non-.NET skills with only minor overlap risk against general coding skills; it stops short of 5 because triggers are not made explicit.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
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: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/dotnet-architect/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.