Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/devmappouras/local-code-review-claude-plugin/dotnet-angular-reviewnpx skills add devMappouras/local-code-review-claude-plugin --skill dotnet-angular-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/devMappouras/local-code-review-claude-pluginWrote 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/skills/devmappouras/local-code-review-claude-plugin/dotnet-angular-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/devmappouras/local-code-review-claude-plugin/dotnet-angular-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/devmappouras/local-code-review-claude-plugin/dotnet-angular-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00092 | $0.01743 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00872 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00349 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00174 |
Grade A, and why
.NET and Angular Code Review Best Practices 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 3d 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 — 283 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Apply these best practices when reviewing .NET and Angular code. Focus on issues that matter - bugs, security vulnerabilities, and significant design problems. Avoid nitpicks and style preferences.
.NET Best Practices
Clean Architecture
Layer Dependencies (Strict):
- Domain: No dependencies (pure business logic)
- Application: Depends only on Domain
- Infrastructure: Depends on Application and Domain
- Presentation/API: Depends on Application (not Infrastructure directly)
Violations to flag:
- Domain layer importing Infrastructure namespaces
- Application layer directly instantiating Infrastructure classes
- Circular dependencies between layers
- Business logic in controllers or Infrastructure
SOLID Principles
Single Responsibility:
- Classes doing multiple unrelated things
- Methods longer than 30-50 lines
- Services mixing business logic with I/O operations
Open/Closed:
- Switch statements on type that could use polymorphism
- Modifying existing classes instead of extending
Liskov Substitution:
- Derived classes throwing
NotImplementedException - Overrides that don't honor base class contracts
Interface Segregation:
- Large interfaces forcing implementers to stub methods
- Classes depending on interfaces they don't fully use
Dependency Inversion:
- High-level modules instantiating low-level modules with
new - Depending on concrete classes instead of abstractions
Async/Await Patterns
Critical Issues (Always flag):
// BAD: Blocking on async
var result = GetDataAsync().Result; // Deadlock risk
var result = GetDataAsync().Wait(); // Deadlock risk
// BAD: async void (except event handlers)
public async void ProcessData() { } // Exceptions lost
// BAD: Missing await
public async Task ProcessAsync() {
GetDataAsync(); // Fire and forget - bugs!
}
Correct Patterns:
// GOOD: Proper async/await
public async Task<Result> ProcessAsync() {
var data = await GetDataAsync();
return await TransformAsync(data);
}
// GOOD: ConfigureAwait in library code
var data = await GetDataAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 283 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A fe86bc2d1916
.NET and Angular Code Review Best Practices is a skill published in the GitHub repository devMappouras/local-code-review-claude-plugin (1 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 1,743 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
new-skill
Scaffold a new brooks-lint analysis skill so it passes npm run validate and npm run evals on the first try — generates skills/{name}/SKILL.md (with the mandatory "Do NOT trigger for:" clause and a Process section citing guide step ranges) plus skills/{name}/{name}-guide.md (sequentially numbered steps), then appends…
release
Cut a brooks-lint release: set the version in package.json, propagate it across all four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file (README badges, docs site metadata), write the CHANGELOG entry, validate, then commit, push, tag, and publish the GitHub release. Triggers when the maintainer asks to "release"…
brooks-audit
Architecture audit that maps module dependencies, checks layering integrity, and flags structural decay across a codebase, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to audit architecture, review folder/module structure, check for circular imports, understand how the codebase is organized…
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
brooks-review
PR code review that surfaces decay risks, design smells, and maintainability issues with concrete Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy findings, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to review code, check a PR, shares a diff or pastes code asking "does this look right?" / "any issues…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…