dotnet-code-review
Skill13 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review .NET changes for bugs, regressions, architectural drift, missing tests, incorrect async or disposal behavior, and platform-specific pitfalls before you approve or merge them.
In this repository84 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- dotnet-analyzer-configSkill
- dotnet-architectureSkill
- dotnet-archunitnetSkill
- dotnet-aspireSkill
- dotnet-aspnet-coreSkill
- dotnet-asynkron-profilerSkill
- dotnet-azure-functionsSkill
- dotnet-biomeSkill
- dotnet-blazorSkill
- dotnet-chousSkill
- dotnet-clocSkill
- dotnet-code-analysisSkill
- dotnet-codeqlSkill
- dotnet-complexitySkill
- dotnet-coverletSkill
- dotnet-csharpierSkill
- dotnet-entity-framework6Skill
- dotnet-entity-framework-coreSkill
- dotnet-eslintSkill
- dotnet-formatSkill
- dotnet-grpcSkill
- dotnet-htmlhintSkill
- dotnet-legacy-aspnetSkill
- dotnet-libvlcSkill
- dotnet-managedcode-communicationSkill
- dotnet-managedcode-markitdownSkill
- dotnet-managedcode-mimetypesSkill
- dotnet-managedcode-orleans-graphSkill
- dotnet-managedcode-orleans-signalrSkill
- dotnet-managedcode-storageSkill
- dotnet-mauiSkill
- dotnet-mcaf-agile-deliverySkill
- dotnet-mcaf-devexSkill
- dotnet-mcaf-documentationSkill
- dotnet-mcaf-feature-specSkill
- dotnet-mcaf-human-review-planningSkill
- dotnet-mcaf-ml-ai-deliverySkill
- dotnet-mcaf-nfrSkill
- dotnet-mcafSkill
- dotnet-mcaf-source-controlSkill
- dotnet-mcaf-ui-uxSkill
- dotnet-mcpSkill
- dotnet-metalintSkill
- dotnet-meziantou-analyzerSkill
- dotnet-microsoft-agent-frameworkSkill
- dotnet-microsoft-extensions-aiSkill
- dotnet-microsoft-extensionsSkill
- dotnet-minimal-apisSkill
- dotnet-mixed-realitySkill
- dotnet-mlnetSkill
- dotnet-modern-csharpSkill
- dotnet-mstestSkill
- dotnet-mvvmSkill
- dotnet-netarchtestSkill
- dotnet-nunitSkill
- dotnet-orleansSkill
- dotnet-profilingSkill
- dotnet-project-setupSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 25
Check async flows, cancellation propagation, exception handling, disposal, and transient versus singleton lifetime mistakes.
- Distinctive: line 26
Verify tests cover the changed behavior, not only the happy path or refactored implementation details.
- Distinctive: line 28
Call out missing observability, migration risk, or runtime configuration drift when those are part of the change.
- Distinctive: line 29
Keep findings concrete, reproducible, and tied to specific files or behavior.
- Very specific: line 35
Always propagate CancellationToken parameters
- Very specific: line 36
Use ConfigureAwait(false) in library code
- Very specific: line 37
Never use async void except for event handlers
- Very specific: line 40
Use using declarations or statements for all IDisposable resources
- Very specific: line 41
Use await using for IAsyncDisposable resources
- Very specific: line 42
Use IHttpClientFactory instead of creating HttpClient directly
- Distinctive: line 47
Use parameterized queries or EF to prevent SQL injection
- Distinctive: line 50
Never hardcode secrets; use configuration and secret management
- Distinctive: line 63
no trivial style nit hides a more serious issue
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
.NET Code Review
Trigger On
- reviewing a pull request or patch in a .NET repository
- checking for behavioral regressions, API misuse, or missing tests
- auditing architectural or framework-specific correctness
References
- checklist.md - comprehensive code review checklist organized by risk priority
- patterns.md - common patterns and anti-patterns for async, disposal, and security
Workflow
- Prioritize correctness, data loss, concurrency, security, lifecycle, and platform-compatibility issues before style concerns. Use the checklist P0-P2 categories first.
- Check async flows, cancellation propagation, exception handling, disposal, and transient versus singleton lifetime mistakes. Refer to patterns.md for common pitfalls.
- Verify tests cover the changed behavior, not only the happy path or refactored implementation details.
- Inspect framework-specific boundaries such as EF query translation, ASP.NET middleware order, Blazor render state, or MAUI UI-thread access.
- Call out missing observability, migration risk, or runtime configuration drift when those are part of the change.
- Keep findings concrete, reproducible, and tied to specific files or behavior.
Key Review Patterns
Async Code
- Async must propagate through the entire call chain; never use
.Result,.Wait(), or.GetAwaiter().GetResult()in async contexts - Always propagate
CancellationTokenparameters - Use
ConfigureAwait(false)in library code - Never use
async voidexcept for event handlers
Resource Disposal
- Use
usingdeclarations or statements for allIDisposableresources - Use
await usingforIAsyncDisposableresources - Use
IHttpClientFactoryinstead of creatingHttpClientdirectly - Unsubscribe event handlers to prevent memory leaks
- Validate DI service lifetimes to prevent captured dependencies
Security
- Use parameterized queries or EF to prevent SQL injection
- Validate all user input at system boundaries
- Prevent path traversal by validating resolved paths stay within allowed directories
- Never hardcode secrets; use configuration and secret management
- Enforce authorization checks before accessing protected resources
Deliver
- ranked review findings with file references
- clear residual risks and test gaps
- brief summary of what changed only after findings
Validate
- findings describe user-visible or maintainability-impacting risk
- assumptions are stated when repo context is incomplete
- no trivial style nit hides a more serious issue
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

