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 skills add managedcode/dotnet-skills --skill code-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/managedcode/dotnet-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/skills/managedcode/dotnet-skills/code-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/managedcode/dotnet-skills/code-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/dotnet-skills/code-analysis/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/skills/managedcode/dotnet-skills/code-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/dotnet-skills/code-analysis.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00099 | $0.01943 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00971 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00389 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00194 |
Grade A, and why
code-analysis 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 6d 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.
Copies of this mod
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- dotnet-code-analysis — 95% identical, 10 lines differ
- dotnet-code-analysis — 95% identical, 10 lines differ
- dotnet-code-analysis — 94% identical, 12 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
.NET Code Analysis
Trigger On
- the repo wants first-party .NET analyzers
- CI should fail on analyzer warnings
- the team needs
AnalysisLevelorAnalysisModeguidance - the repo needs a gradual Roslyn warning promotion strategy
Do Not Use For
- third-party analyzer selection by itself
- formatting-only work
Inputs
- the nearest
AGENTS.md - project files or
Directory.Build.props - current analyzer severity policy
Hard Rules for AI Agents
Non-negotiable. Violating these undermines the user's explicit intent.
- Never disable or remove
TreatWarningsAsErrorsorWarningsAsErrorsif the project has set them. Do not comment them out, set tofalse, wrap in a condition, or add<TreatWarningsAsErrors>false</TreatWarningsAsErrors>to make the build pass. - Never add
<NoWarn>or#pragma warning disablefor warnings the user chose to treat as errors, unless the user explicitly approves the suppression. - Never silently downgrade severity in
.editorconfig(e.g.errortowarningornone) to make a build succeed. - If warnings-as-errors breaks the build — fix the code. If the fix is too large, ask the user whether to defer that warning ID.
- If warning volume is too large to fix in one pass — report count and categories to the user and ask which to tackle first. Do not unilaterally disable the policy.
Workflow
flowchart TD
A[Start] --> B{New or legacy project?}
B -->|New| C[TreatWarningsAsErrors=true immediately]
B -->|Legacy| D[dotnet build, count warnings by ID]
D --> E{"< 30 warnings?"}
E -->|Yes| F[Fix all, then enable TreatWarningsAsErrors]
E -->|No| G[Report counts to user, ask which batch first]
G --> H[Add selected IDs to WarningsAsErrors]
H --> I[Fix that batch, verify build]
I --> J{More batches?}
J -->|Yes| G
J -->|No| F
C --> K[Set AnalysisLevel latest-recommended]
F --> K
K --> L[Promote security CA3xxx/CA5xxx to error in .editorconfig]
L --> M[Validate: build + CI green]
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 192 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A e3109d36fdd2
code-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository managedcode/dotnet-skills (477 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 1,943 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review
Multi-dimensional review of a PR or feature branch in microsoft/win-dev-skills. Activate on "review my PR / changes / branch", "vet before pushing", "PR review", "is this ready to merge". Fans out parallel sub-agents over skill content, the skill-vs-tool boundary (solution hierarchy), tool correctness…
winui-code-review
Code quality review for WinUI 3 apps — MVVM compliance, x:Bind correctness, accessibility, theming, security, and performance. Use before committing to catch issues that the compiler and UI tests won't find.
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities". Do NOT use for accessibility (use web-accessibility), SEO (use seo), performance (use…
gh-address-comments
Address review and issue comments on the open GitHub PR for the current branch using gh CLI. Use when user says "address PR comments", "fix review feedback", "respond to PR review", or "handle PR comments". Verifies gh auth first and prompts to authenticate if not logged in. Do NOT use for creating PRs, CI debugging…
clean-code-review
Run a comprehensive Clean Code audit against the codebase — module size, function complexity, long parameter lists, TODO/FIXME markers, commented-out code, duplication (DRY), Boy Scout delta, dead exports, test smells, shell-parity (PS/Bash twins), dep boundaries (cross-package imports), frozen-arrays drift…
code-review
Plan-Forge-tuned comprehensive code review — runs public-surface diff, forge analysis, architecture / security / testing / patterns checks, plus Plan-Forge-specific gates (ACI compliance, dual-shell parity, branch model). Use before merging features or at the end of a phase. With --quorum, dispatches multi-model…