agentleFS
codewithmukeshcodewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit/skills/health-check/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Very specific:

    After a cleanup sprint (/de-sloppify) — re-grade to show progress

    line 36
  2. Very specific:

    Read references/grading-rubric.md for the grade thresholds, then collect data per dimension.

    line 53
  3. Distinctive:

    Check invariants: If a signal contradicts something the target repo's CLAUDE.md documents as deliberate, the invariant wins — verify before …

    line 80
  4. Distinctive:

    Read before asserting: Never describe a finding you have not opened.

    line 82

“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.

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

/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

ScenarioDimensions
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 refactor1 (Build), 3 (Architecture), 4 (Tests)
Post-dependency update1 (Build), 7 (Security)
After cleanup sprintRe-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.

#DimensionData source
1Build Healthdotnet build --no-restore — errors + warnings
2Code QualityMCP detect_antipatterns — read summary, grade high-confidence only
3ArchitectureMCP get_project_graph + detect_circular_dependencies (projects AND types)
4Test CoverageMCP get_test_coverage_map — check applicable first (structural, not line coverage)
5Dead CodeMCP find_dead_code(scope: "solution") — grade high-confidence; ignore conventionFiltered
6API SurfaceMCP get_public_api + find_references — overexposure, return-type consistency
7Security Posturedotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive + secrets/auth spot check (deep dive: /security-scan)
8DocumentationXML 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.

  1. Read summary, not the violation list. summary.byId is complete even when the list is truncated. Never sample a truncated list and extrapolate.
  2. Drop suppressed. Record the count and summary.suppressionConfig in the report so suppression stays visible.
  3. Set aside medium. These are review items, not grade inputs. Summarise them by category; do not fix or count them.
  4. Grade high only. These are wrong regardless of context.
  5. Check invariants. If a signal contradicts something the target repo's CLAUDE.md documents as deliberate, the invariant wins — verify before grading.
  6. 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

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.