CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

dotnet-inspect-correctness

Investigate .NET exception handling, unsafe operations, interop boundaries and pooled-resource ownership using exact Member and IL evidence; static findings do not establish overall safety.

Quality

77%

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 ./skills/correctness/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 dense, highly actionable skill body: executable CLI commands for every analysis phase, a concrete evidence-routing table for 26 guidance topics, and disciplined boundaries around what evidence can and cannot prove. The workflow is well-checkpointed though implicitly sequenced, and the only notable gap is the undemonstrated jq slicing step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes .NET/IL competence with no beginner padding (e.g., "Slice `localloc`; drill loop membership, length construction, span conversion, and bounds"), but the `unverified`-boundary caveats repeat across sections and a few sentences could be trimmed, stopping short of anchor 5's "every token earns its place".

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready commands for each phase (`member Type Method:1 -S "Exception Regions"`, `library address 0x06000001+0x5 --library Foo.dll`, `diff --history --package MyLib@1.0.0..2.0.0`) plus a concrete per-topic evidence routing table. Minor gap: `jq` is named as the primary local slicing tool but no concrete jq example is shown.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear acquire → select → drill → route → report sequence with explicit checkpoints ("Resolve an exact Type and Member selector before drilling", empty-output vs failed-inspection distinction, adjacent-pair confirmation with `PairFinding.Added`) and a 6-item report checklist. Not 5 because the sequence is implied by section order rather than explicitly enumerated and checkpoints are scattered.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with clearly signaled cross-references (the `signals` skill, `skill decompiler`, the .NET best-practices guide). No bundle files exist, and the inlined 26-row routing table is the skill's operational core rather than bulk reference material — good structure with minor organization gaps.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 specific, distinctive description that clearly states what the skill investigates and how, in third person with no fluff. Its main weakness is the absence of any explicit "when to use" trigger guidance, and it slightly under-represents the skill's full capability set.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when reviewing .NET code for exception behavior, memory safety, interop risk, or pooled-resource ownership, or when the user mentions unsafe code, P/Invoke, or .NET crashes."

Include natural synonyms such as "memory safety" and "crash analysis" so the description triggers on phrasings users actually say.

Mention the version-boundary/diff capability (confirming when an unsafe operation first appeared) since it is a documented feature of the skill body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete capability areas ("exception handling, unsafe operations, interop boundaries and pooled-resource ownership") plus a specific evidence mechanism ("exact Member and IL evidence"), but omits capabilities the body covers (version-boundary diffs, the 26-topic guidance review), leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear and concrete, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; the trailing clause "static findings do not establish overall safety" is a caveat, not a trigger, which caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say — ".NET", "exception handling", "unsafe operations", "interop" — but misses common synonyms such as "memory safety", "crash", or "P/Invoke" that would broaden natural triggering.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The ".NET" domain combined with exact Member/IL evidence investigation carves a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk against generic code-analysis skills.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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

richlander/dotnet-inspect

Path

skills/correctness/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.