CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

dotnet-standards-enforcer

Reviews and refactors .NET/C# code: fixes async patterns, validates DI registration, corrects error handling, adds documentation, enforces style conventions. USE FOR: review C# code, audit project, enforce coding standards, apply .NET best practices, clean up code, fix style issues, apply coding standards, tidy up this file, make this idiomatic C#, fix code quality issues, get PR-ready, prepare for code review, add documentation, fix async patterns, check DI registration, check error handling, fix configuration, bring this up to standard, make this code production-ready. DO NOT USE FOR: non-.NET codebases, read-only .NET questions, trivial single-variable edits.

90

1.27x
Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

92%

1.27x

Average score across 6 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 well-structured orchestration skill with excellent progressive disclosure (verified against the actual bundle files) and largely actionable instructions. Its main weaknesses are a missing validation/verification step in a batch file-editing workflow and redundant repetition of the do-not-stop directive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation loop after applying findings — e.g., run `dotnet build` (or `dotnet test`) after edits, fix any regressions, and re-validate before declaring completion — to lift workflow_clarity above the batch-operation cap.

Clarify the `// ...existing code...` instruction to state that unchanged code should be preserved via the file editing tools (not that the literal placeholder string should be written to disk).

Consolidate the three repeated 'apply everything / do not stop' directives into a single statement to tighten the Execution Rules and Apply Findings sections.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence (no concept re-teaching), but the apply-everything directive is stated three times ("APPLY ALL CHANGES ... do not stop at summarising", "DO NOT STOP until ...", "Do not stop until all Critical, Warning and Info findings have been written to disk"), which could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout — exact exclusion globs ("**/*.g.cs", "**/Migrations/**"), a fully specified findings-table schema with severity definitions, and a per-sub-skill file table. However, "Use `// ...existing code...` to preserve unchanged sections" is ambiguous when writing directly to files (risk of a literal placeholder being written to disk), and no example finding is provided — minor gaps consistent with the 4 anchor.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clearly laid out (pre-flight framework detection → scope/exclusions → ordered sub-skills per file → consolidated summary → apply findings → checkpoint on context limits), but this batch operation writes edits to every file in scope with no validation step (e.g., no build/compile check that fixes are correct after applying). Per the rubric, batch operations without validation cap workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine orchestration overview: a sub-skill table links each of the 8 reference files with focus areas, trigger-phrases.md is linked from Use When, all referenced files exist in references/, and none of them nest further references — one-level-deep, well-signaled, easy navigation.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

An exemplary description: it states what the skill does through concrete verbs, provides extensive natural trigger phrases for when to use it, and delimits scope with an explicit DO NOT USE FOR clause. All four dimensions sit at the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"fixes async patterns, validates DI registration, corrects error handling, adds documentation, enforces style conventions" lists multiple specific concrete actions whose coverage matches the body's sub-skill areas; this is comprehensive rather than leaving minor gaps, so it fits the 5 anchor better than 4.

5 / 5

Completeness

"Reviews and refactors .NET/C# code: ..." clearly answers what, and "USE FOR: ..." with ~20 concrete trigger phrases plus "DO NOT USE FOR: ..." explicitly answers when; third-person voice is used throughout, matching the 5 anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"review C# code", "clean up code", "tidy up this file", "make this idiomatic C#", "get PR-ready", "prepare for code review" give comprehensive natural-phrase coverage with synonyms (review/audit, clean up/tidy up) across both review- and fix-oriented intents plus per-sub-area triggers, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is pinned to ".NET/C# code" with explicit negative triggers ("non-.NET codebases, read-only .NET questions, trivial single-variable edits"), giving a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with generic code-review skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

g14wx/staffSync

Path

.tessl/tiles/thoughtboat/copilot-skills-that-work/dotnet-standards-enforcer/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.