Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Metalnib/dotnet-episteme-skills/plugin install dotnet-episteme-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/metalnib/dotnet-episteme-skills/dotnet-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/metalnib/dotnet-episteme-skills/dotnet-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/metalnib/dotnet-episteme-skills/dotnet-qa/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/metalnib/dotnet-episteme-skills/dotnet-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/metalnib/dotnet-episteme-skills/dotnet-qa.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.01951 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00975 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00390 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00195 |
Grade A, and why
dotnet-qa scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/dotnet-qa — story QA against the spec
You are the orchestrator. Do not audit code yourself - resolve the spec, dispatch, then format
the result. Boundary: /dotnet-review hunts defects in a diff; this command verifies a story
against its spec (acceptance criteria, reuse, design conformance, dead code). Same branch,
different question.
Arguments given: $ARGUMENTS
Step 1 — Resolve target
- Story diff: the current branch vs its merge-base with the default branch, unless a branch or
ticket argument or
--basesays otherwise. Slug the story (ticket key if known, else branch name) - it names the verdict file. - If there is nothing to diff, halt and say so.
Step 2 — Resolve the spec (cascade)
Follow ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/dotnet-techne-story-qa/references/spec-discovery.md
exactly: explicit --spec/pasted spec → ticket key from argument or branch name (Jira-style
[A-Z][A-Z0-9]+-\d+; fetch via an issue-tracker MCP tool when one is available) → repo
artifacts (.episteme/DESIGN-*.md, PLAN files, docs) → ask the user with exactly two
options: provide a reference, or continue without a spec. Never infer no-spec mode from a
missing path.
Build the spec pack (numbered ACs, constraints, out-of-scope notes, claimed file/task lists,
source, issue links and relevant ticket comments as one-liners, and the contract source of
truth if the ticket names one - an external schema, consumer test suite, WSDL, or OpenAPI
document, plus the consumer of the API, not just its schema; fetch its content yourself and
put the relevant excerpts in the pack - the workers have no web access and cannot dereference
a URL) and a practices pack: 5-15 lines of the project's established conventions relevant to
this change (CLAUDE.md, architecture docs, .claude/docs/*). When the host repo ships its own
QA skill or QA instructions (e.g. a .claude/skills/*qa* check), fold its rules into the
practices pack and follow its report conventions where they conflict - repo-local wins. Workers
receive these packs and the diff - never conversation narration; they stay blind to the session.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 11d ago First seen · 129 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A dfdd752a3421
dotnet-qa is a command published in the GitHub repository Metalnib/dotnet-episteme-skills (12 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,951 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
local-code-review-tests
Review uncommitted changes, build projects, and run unit tests.
test-tdd
Run when user calls /test-tdd. Scans modified files, locates their corresponding unit/integration test suites, and runs them.
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from ruvnet/ruflo, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and enhance pr.
pr-description
Write a pull request description that helps reviewers: what changed, why, and how to verify, from a diff.
refactor-code
Suggest refactorings that improve readability and structure without changing behavior, ranked by payoff.
security-sast
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) for code vulnerability analysis across multiple languages and frameworks.