agentleFS
dprakash2101dprakash2101/dotnet-production-agent-skills/skills/relational-database-dotnet/SKILL.md

relational-database-dotnet

Skill4 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when implementing, reviewing, or troubleshooting .NET PostgreSQL or Oracle SQL, ADO.NET providers, parameterized queries, connections, transactions, mapping, or database performance. Compose with ef-core-safety for EF Core.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Follow the repository's established data integration/data-access layer.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Use async database APIs on asynchronous paths and propagate cancellation.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep transactions as short as practical and include only operations that share the atomic boundary.

    line 13
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep connection strings and credentials in approved configuration/secret stores.

    line 16
  5. Distinctive:

    Read only the matching provider reference: PostgreSQL or Oracle.

    line 20
  6. Distinctive:

    Use provider-representative tests for transaction, null, precision, cancellation and pagination behavior where practical.

    line 24

≈ “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

Relational database access for .NET

Follow the repository's established data integration/data-access layer. Keep SQL and provider calls out of controllers. Inspect current provider version, connection factory/data source, mapping conventions, transaction ownership, and command timeout behavior before changing access code.

  • Parameterize every runtime value; never concatenate untrusted input into SQL. Dynamic identifiers require a trusted allowlist and correct provider quoting.
  • Reuse the provider's thread-safe data source/pool, but open a logical connection late and dispose it promptly. Dispose commands, readers, transactions, and provider resources with using/await using as supported.
  • Use async database APIs on asynchronous paths and propagate cancellation. Set a deliberate command timeout consistent with upstream deadlines; distinguish cancellation from timeout and dependency failure.
  • Keep transactions as short as practical and include only operations that share the atomic boundary. Commit explicitly; ensure failure disposes/rolls back. Do not hold a transaction open across avoidable remote calls.
  • Map database nulls, precision, text/binary sizes, date/time zones, and provider-specific types explicitly. Do not rely on machine culture or silent narrowing conversions.
  • Select only needed columns, bound result sets, page with a stable order, avoid per-row queries, and inspect execution plans/index implications when query shape or volume warrants it.
  • Keep connection strings and credentials in approved configuration/secret stores. Log safe operation identifiers and timing, not SQL values, connection strings, or sensitive result data.

Do not add custom retries merely because transient failures are possible. Add them only when explicitly requested or required by existing architecture. Prefer provider/framework resilience. Before retrying, classify transient errors and prove idempotency, transaction boundaries, timeout budget, duplicate-write safety, bounded attempts, backoff/jitter, cancellation, and observability. Never retry permanent errors or unsafe writes blindly.

Read only the matching provider reference: PostgreSQL or Oracle.

For EF Core work, load ef-core-safety for ORM behavior. Load this skill and only the matching provider reference as well when the task depends on provider-specific SQL, type mapping, connection, transaction, or resilience semantics; do not load both for provider-agnostic EF Core changes.

Use provider-representative tests for transaction, null, precision, cancellation and pagination behavior where practical; explicitly record provider limitations if the test environment cannot reproduce them.

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.