CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

dotnet-backend

Build ASP.NET Core 8+ backend services with EF Core, auth, background jobs, and production API patterns.

Quality

63%

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/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is dotnet-backend in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-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 content is well-organized with genuinely executable code examples, but it spends most of its token budget restating standard ASP.NET Core boilerplate and persona/expertise inventories that Claude already knows. There is no sequenced workflow or validation guidance, and no progressive disclosure — all detail is inlined in the single file.

Suggestions

Cut the persona framing ('8+ years of experience') and the framework/expertise inventory lists; keep only the house-style conventions Claude could not infer (e.g. preferred libraries, naming patterns).

Add validation checkpoints to the workflows, e.g. for EF Core changes: create migration (dotnet ef migrations add), verify the generated migration, then update the database — and for APIs: confirm with Swagger/OpenAPI before finishing.

Move the four full code patterns into a references/ file (e.g. references/patterns.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview linking to it, so the main file stays lean.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably verbose for a skill aimed at a model that already knows ASP.NET Core: persona framing ('expert .NET/C# backend developer with 8+ years of experience'), an exhaustive framework/expertise inventory, and four full boilerplate code samples (JWT TokenService, BackgroundService, standard controller) that restate well-known patterns. It is more than 'some unnecessary explanation' (anchor 3) but stays short of anchor 1 since there is no tutorial-style padding explaining basics.

2 / 5

Actionability

The four code examples (Minimal API, controller-based API, JWT TokenService, BackgroundService) are complete, syntactically valid, executable C# covering the skill's main scenarios. Minor gaps keep it from anchor 5: AppDbContext/User/PendingEmail types are referenced but never defined, the BCrypt package registration is omitted, and no commands (e.g. dotnet ef migrations add) are given for the EF Core guidance.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Responsibilities are enumerated (APIs, EF Core, auth, background services, performance) and each code pattern shows an implicit request-to-persist flow, but there is no sequenced workflow and zero validation checkpoints — no steps to run migrations, test endpoints, or verify EF Core changes before proceeding. The simple-skill exception does not apply since this is a multi-domain skill, so the missing checkpoints place it at anchor 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so everything lives in one 256-line SKILL.md. Section headers are clear and well-ordered, but roughly 150 lines of boilerplate code patterns and expertise inventories that would belong in reference files are fully inlined, matching anchor 3 ('some structure... content that should be separate is inline') rather than 4.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 reasonably specific, distinctive description that names the domain and its technology stack well, but it reads as a capability inventory rather than a trigger document. Its biggest defect is the complete absence of a 'Use when...' clause, which both caps completeness and leaves invocation conditions implicit.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to build or refactor ASP.NET Core/.NET APIs, set up EF Core data access, implement JWT auth, or add background workers in C#.'

Convert some topic nouns into concrete actions (e.g. 'Build and refactor ASP.NET Core APIs, configure EF Core data access, implement JWT authentication, deploy background workers') so the description lists several specific actions.

Include common synonyms such as C#, .NET, Entity Framework, and Minimal API to widen trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain precisely ('ASP.NET Core 8+ backend services with EF Core, auth, background jobs, and production API patterns') but offers only one concrete action verb ('Build') — the remaining phrases are topic nouns rather than actions. It fits anchor 3 (domain named with 1-2 concrete actions) rather than 4, which requires several specific actions; it is well above anchor 2, whose actions are generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and concrete, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the description never states when Claude should invoke it. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, and this is exactly that case.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'ASP.NET Core', 'EF Core', 'auth', and 'background jobs' are natural phrases users would say when needing this skill, giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms and variations (C#, .NET, Entity Framework, JWT, web API, Minimal API) are missing, but coverage is too strong for anchor 3.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The .NET backend niche is clear and its triggers (ASP.NET Core, EF Core) are distinct from most other skills. Broad terms like 'auth' and 'production API patterns' create minor overlap risk with generic backend or security skills, keeping it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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

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