health-check
Skill808 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Multi-dimensional health assessment for .NET projects with letter grades (A-F) using Roslyn MCP tools. Evaluates 8 dimensions: build health, code quality, architecture, test coverage, dead code, API surface, security posture, and documentation. Produces a structured report card with actionable recommendations. Load this skill when: "health check", "how healthy is this", "project health", "code quality report", "grade this project", "assess codebase", "quality audit", "technical assessment", "codebase review", "report card".
21 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- telerik/observability-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 22, 2026
- allanninal/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- hosaypeng/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Resgrid/Coretheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- kubehan/PromAItheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- zylos-ai/zylos-coretheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions21 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 21
- zylos-ai/zylos-core★ 1.2ksame name
- bitwize-music-studio/claude-ai-music-skills★ 589same name
- Resgrid/Core★ 238same name
- kubehan/PromAI★ 129same name
- hoangsonww/AI-Agents-Orchestrator★ 83same name
- fagemx/edda★ 36same name
- weklund/fiduciary★ 10same name
- aws-samples/sample-aws-ops-skills-for-agents★ 8same name
- link7373/agentic-bi-team★ 4same name
- davidromeo/tradeblocks-skills★ 3same name
11 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository57 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/rules/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- .codex/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .opencode/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/dotnet-rules.mdCursor rule
- api-versioningSkill
- arch-checkSkill
- architecture-advisorSkill
- aspireSkill
- authenticationSkill
- avaloniaSkill
- build-fixSkill
- cachingSkill
- checkpointSkill
- ci-cdSkill
- clean-architectureSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- configurationSkill
- console-cliSkill
- container-publishSkill
- convention-learnerSkill
- dddSkill
- dependency-injectionSkill
- desktop-mvvmSkill
- de-sloppifySkill
- dockerSkill
- dotnet-initSkill
- ef-coreSkill
- error-handlingSkill
- httpclient-factorySkill
- instinct-systemSkill
- loggingSkill
- messagingSkill
- migrateSkill
- minimal-apiSkill
- modern-csharpSkill
- native-aotSkill
- openapiSkill
- opentelemetrySkill
- outdatedSkill
- planSkill
- project-setupSkill
- project-structureSkill
- resilienceSkill
- scaffoldSkill
- scalarSkill
- security-scanSkill
- serilogSkill
- specSkill
- tddSkill
- testingSkill
- token-reportSkill
- verifySkill
- vertical-sliceSkill
- workflow-masterySkill
- wrap-upSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 16 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 36
After a cleanup sprint (/de-sloppify) — re-grade to show progress
- Very specific: line 53
Read references/grading-rubric.md for the grade thresholds, then collect data per dimension.
- Distinctive: line 80
Check invariants: If a signal contradicts something the target repo's CLAUDE.md documents as deliberate, the invariant wins — verify before …
- Distinctive: line 82
Read before asserting: Never describe a finding you have not opened.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 16 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
/health-check — 8-Dimension Project Assessment
What
Runs a data-driven health assessment across 8 dimensions, each graded A-F with the specific data points that produced the grade, and rolls them into a GPA. Gut feeling is not a grade: every dimension uses MCP tools or CLI commands, and every grade below A comes with specific, prioritized, effort-estimated fixes — "add test classes for OrderService, PaymentProcessor, ShippingCalculator" is actionable; "improve test coverage" is not.
This skill owns the canonical grading system for the kit. The full rubrics,
GPA scale, and report template live in references/grading-rubric.md — load
that file when running an assessment.
Tone is diagnostic, not punitive: a C grade is an improvement path, not a failure.
When
- Onboarding to an unfamiliar or new project — set the baseline
- "How healthy is this?", "grade this project", "codebase review", "report card"
- Pre-release quality gate, or monthly/quarterly maintenance review
- After a cleanup sprint (
/de-sloppify) — re-grade to show progress - Tech-debt prioritization — lowest grades get the next sprint's attention
How
Step 1: Choose Scope
| Scenario | Dimensions |
| Full assessment (onboarding, pre-release, monthly review) | All 8 |
| Quick health (mid-sprint checkpoint, before a demo, after a merge) | 1-4 only |
| After major refactor | 1 (Build), 3 (Architecture), 4 (Tests) |
| Post-dependency update | 1 (Build), 7 (Security) |
| After cleanup sprint | Re-grade only the cleaned dimensions |
Step 2: Run the Dimensions
Read references/grading-rubric.md for the grade thresholds, then collect data
per dimension. For deep code-quality dimensions, delegate to the
code-reviewer agent with the code-review skill.
| # | Dimension | Data source |
| 1 | Build Health | dotnet build --no-restore — errors + warnings |
| 2 | Code Quality | MCP detect_antipatterns — read summary, grade high-confidence only |
| 3 | Architecture | MCP get_project_graph + detect_circular_dependencies (projects AND types) |
| 4 | Test Coverage | MCP get_test_coverage_map — check applicable first (structural, not line coverage) |
| 5 | Dead Code | MCP find_dead_code(scope: "solution") — grade high-confidence; ignore conventionFiltered |
| 6 | API Surface | MCP get_public_api + find_references — overexposure, return-type consistency |
| 7 | Security Posture | dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive + secrets/auth spot check (deep dive: /security-scan) |
| 8 | Documentation | XML doc coverage on public APIs + README currency |
Step 2.5: Triage Gate (before any grade is assigned)
Detector output is evidence, not a grade. Pass every finding through this gate first — it is what stops a noisy count becoming a wrong letter.
- Read
summary, not the violation list.summary.byIdis complete even when the list is truncated. Never sample a truncated list and extrapolate. - Drop
suppressed. Record the count andsummary.suppressionConfigin the report so suppression stays visible. - Set aside
medium. These are review items, not grade inputs. Summarise them by category; do not fix or count them. - Grade
highonly. These are wrong regardless of context. - Check invariants. If a signal contradicts something the target repo's CLAUDE.md documents as deliberate, the invariant wins — verify before grading.
- Read before asserting. Never describe a finding you have not opened. If you cannot open all of them, report the ones you did and say so.
Fill in the triage table from references/grading-rubric.md as you go. If the
table cannot be filled, the dimension is not ready to grade.
Step 3: Grade and Aggregate
Apply the rubric thresholds exactly — never grade on a curve ("pretty good for a project this size" is how standards erode; 15 warnings is a C regardless of project size). Convert to GPA (A=4.0 … F=0.0), averaging only the dimensions actually graded — a dimension marked "Not assessed" is excluded from the GPA, never scored as an F.
Step 4: Report
Produce the report card from the template in references/grading-rubric.md:
grades table with key findings, overall GPA, and priority recommendations —
each with named types/files, priority order, and effort estimates. If a
previous report exists, append the trend comparison table.
Example
User: /health-check
Claude: Running full 8-dimension assessment...
| Dimension | Grade | Key Finding |
|-----------|-------|-------------|
| Build Health | A | 0 errors, 2 warnings |
| Code Quality | B | 3 high-confidence findings in 4.2K lines; 31 medium untriaged |
| Architecture | A | Clean direction, 0 cycles |
| Test Coverage | Not assessed | Integration-driven suite — structural metric invalid |
| Dead Code | B | 5 unused methods (79 convention-discovered, not counted) |
| API Surface | B | 2 overexposed service types |
| Security | A | 0 vulnerable packages |
| Documentation | D | 12/30 public APIs documented |
Overall GPA: 3.1 (B) — averaged over 7 graded dimensions.
Triage: 44 AP005 raw → all log-and-rethrow wrappers (medium); 2 AP004 real.
Priority: (1) `SystemSeeder` → `TimeProvider`, ~15 min; (2) XML docs on the 8
endpoint classes, ~1 day; (3) review the 44 catch blocks or suppress by path.Related
references/grading-rubric.md— canonical rubrics, GPA scale, report template/de-sloppify— cleanup pipeline for the issues a health check surfaces/security-scan— deep 6-layer scan behind Dimension 7/code-review— per-change review (this skill grades the whole project)/verify— pass/fail pipeline for a change set, not a graded assessment
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.

