CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

dotnet-backend-patterns

Master C#/.NET patterns for building production-grade APIs, MCP servers, and enterprise backends with modern best practices (2024/2025).

48

Quality

51%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/dotnet-backend-patterns/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is dotnet-backend-patterns in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%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 skill body is well-structured and token-efficient with useful 'Use when / Do not use when' framing, but its instructions are abstract directives with no executable guidance, no validation checkpoints, and a broken reference path that leaves the real bundle files undiscoverable.

Suggestions

Replace the abstract instruction bullets with concrete, executable guidance (e.g. specific DI registration snippets, EF Core AsNoTracking/compiled-query commands) or move them into the playbook and keep one concrete quick-start example inline.

Fix the reference path: the body points to resources/implementation-playbook.md which does not exist — either create it or link the actual files (references/dapper-patterns.md, references/ef-core-best-practices.md) and assets/*.cs.template.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the architecture workflow (e.g. 'After changes, build and run the test suite before proceeding') to sequence the multi-step process.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence with no concept over-explanation or padding; it falls just short of 5 because the opening line repeats the frontmatter description and a couple of generic instruction bullets don't fully earn their place.

4 / 5

Actionability

The Instructions are abstract directives ("Define architecture boundaries", "Apply DI, async patterns, and resilience strategies") with no concrete code, commands, or examples, matching the 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps' anchor; the one concrete reference is to a non-existent path.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Instructions form a rough conceptual sequence (define -> apply DI/async/resilience -> validate -> add tests) but contain no validation checkpoints or feedback loops, matching the 'steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body has clear sections and signals a reference ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md'), but that path does not exist and the actual bundle files in references/ and assets/ are never linked, so navigation is broken and the real materials are undiscoverable, capping it at the 'some structure, references not clearly signaled' level.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 scopes the C#/.NET backend niche and names several concrete target areas, giving it good distinctiveness, but it omits any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance and phrases capabilities as aspirational goals rather than concrete actions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when' clause naming natural user triggers, e.g. 'Use when building .NET Web APIs, MCP servers, or enterprise C# backends.'

Reword 'Master C#/.NET patterns for building...' into concrete actions the skill performs (e.g. 'Apply DI, async, and resilience patterns; optimize EF Core/Dapper data access') to lift specificity.

Include common synonyms ('.NET', 'Web API', 'minimal APIs') so trigger-term coverage catches more natural phrasings.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain clearly ("C#/.NET patterns") and several concrete target areas ("production-grade APIs, MCP servers, and enterprise backends"), but frames them as aspirational targets ("Master", "building") rather than listing concrete actions the skill performs, fitting the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions but not comprehensive' anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

Provides a clear 'what' (building production-grade APIs, MCP servers, enterprise backends) but no 'when' — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which the rubric caps at 3; matches the 'clear what but when missing' anchor.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant natural terms a developer would say ("C#/.NET", "APIs", "MCP servers", "enterprise backends") but lacks common synonyms and variations (e.g. "Web API", "minimal APIs", ".NET" alone) and has no natural 'Use when' phrasing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The C#/.NET backend niche is clearly scoped and unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, with only minor overlap risk against a general backend skill; falls just short of a 5 because 'enterprise backends' is broad and no explicit trigger phrases narrow it.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation15 / 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
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.