agentleFS
Postpartum-genushyacinthus29Postpartum-genushyacinthus29/dotnet-skills/skills/dotnet-code-review/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Check async flows, cancellation propagation, exception handling, disposal, and transient versus singleton lifetime mistakes.

    line 25
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify tests cover the changed behavior, not only the happy path or refactored implementation details.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    Call out missing observability, migration risk, or runtime configuration drift when those are part of the change.

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep findings concrete, reproducible, and tied to specific files or behavior.

    line 29
  5. Very specific:

    Always propagate CancellationToken parameters

    line 35
  6. Very specific:

    Use ConfigureAwait(false) in library code

    line 36
  7. Very specific:

    Never use async void except for event handlers

    line 37
  8. Very specific:

    Use using declarations or statements for all IDisposable resources

    line 40
  9. Very specific:

    Use await using for IAsyncDisposable resources

    line 41
  10. Very specific:

    Use IHttpClientFactory instead of creating HttpClient directly

    line 42
  11. Distinctive:

    Use parameterized queries or EF to prevent SQL injection

    line 47
  12. Distinctive:

    Never hardcode secrets; use configuration and secret management

    line 50
  13. Distinctive:

    no trivial style nit hides a more serious issue

    line 63

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

.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

  1. Prioritize correctness, data loss, concurrency, security, lifecycle, and platform-compatibility issues before style concerns. Use the checklist P0-P2 categories first.
  2. Check async flows, cancellation propagation, exception handling, disposal, and transient versus singleton lifetime mistakes. Refer to patterns.md for common pitfalls.
  3. Verify tests cover the changed behavior, not only the happy path or refactored implementation details.
  4. Inspect framework-specific boundaries such as EF query translation, ASP.NET middleware order, Blazor render state, or MAUI UI-thread access.
  5. Call out missing observability, migration risk, or runtime configuration drift when those are part of the change.
  6. 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 CancellationToken parameters
  • Use ConfigureAwait(false) in library code
  • Never use async void except for event handlers

Resource Disposal

  • Use using declarations or statements for all IDisposable resources
  • Use await using for IAsyncDisposable resources
  • Use IHttpClientFactory instead of creating HttpClient directly
  • 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

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.