dotnet-architect

Expert .NET backend architect specializing in C#, ASP.NET Core, Entity Framework, Dapper, and enterprise application patterns. Masters async/await, dependency injection, caching strategies, and performance optimization. Use PROACTIVELY for .NET API development, code review, or architecture decisions.

Quality

56%

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 ./skills/dotnet-architect/SKILL.md

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.

A well-sectioned but verbose persona/knowledge dump that mostly restates .NET concepts Claude already knows, with one good code example and a high-level response workflow lacking validation checkpoints. It functions as a role profile more than executable guidance.

Suggestions

Cut the 'Knowledge Base' section and trim the Capabilities catalog to only non-obvious, project-specific conventions; assume Claude knows standard .NET features.

Replace the generic Instructions ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes') with concrete, executable steps or checklists.

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the Response Approach (e.g., 'Verify the build compiles', 'Run tests before declaring done') to create real feedback loops.

Move the detailed capabilities catalog and code-style examples into reference files (e.g., references/capabilities.md, references/code-style.md) and link them one level deep.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is a long enumeration of capabilities, behavioral traits, and a 'Knowledge Base' section cataloguing well-known facts ('Microsoft .NET documentation', 'xUnit test framework', 'Clean Architecture') that Claude already knows, making it noticeably padded.	2 / 5
Actionability	One genuinely executable C# code-style block provides concrete guidance, but the bulk (Capabilities, Behavioral Traits, Response Approach) is descriptive with high-level steps like 'Design architecture with appropriate patterns' rather than executable instruction.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 8-step 'Response Approach' gives a clear sequence but lacks explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops, and the Instructions only abstractly mention 'validate outcomes' and 'verification'.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized, but at ~185 lines the capabilities catalog and code-style examples are all inlined in a single file with no references to separate files, and no bundle files exist to split the detail into.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 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 solid, third-person description with explicit trigger guidance and a clear niche, weakened mainly by persona/buzzword phrasing ('Expert', 'Masters') instead of crisp action enumeration. It satisfies the 'Use when...' requirement comfortably.

Suggestions

Replace persona qualifiers ('Expert', 'Masters') with concrete verbs describing what the skill does (e.g., 'Designs, reviews, and implements .NET APIs').

Expand the trigger list with natural synonyms users might say (e.g., '.NET Core', 'C# backend', 'EF Core', 'web API').

Lead with the action/output rather than the role to raise specificity from use-case listing to concrete capability listing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and a few concrete use cases ('.NET API development, code review, or architecture decisions') but leans on persona/qualification language ('Expert', 'Masters') rather than enumerating concrete actions the skill performs, so it is not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' (specializes in C#/ASP.NET Core/EF/Dapper, masters async/DI/caching/perf) and 'when' ('Use PROACTIVELY for .NET API development, code review, or architecture decisions') are present, but the 'what' is persona-flavored rather than a crisp action list, keeping it just below a 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms a user would say are present ('.NET', 'C#', 'ASP.NET Core', 'API development', 'code review', 'architecture decisions'), giving good keyword coverage with only minor synonyms missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The .NET backend architect niche with specific stack names is clearly distinguishable, though the broad 'code review' trigger carries minor overlap risk with general code-review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/dotnet-architect/SKILL.md
Commit: 3eff4af

Reviewed: 1 day 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.