dotnet-code-analysis

A .NET build and CI setup that turns on the code checks included with the .NET SDK and gradually promotes their warnings. Roslyn is the .NET compiler and code-analysis system.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to configure .NET analyzer settings such as EnableNETAnalyzers, AnalysisLevel, AnalysisMode, and warning policies in project files or Directory.Build.props.
Why use it?
It helps teams catch code problems during builds and decide which analyzer warnings should eventually fail the build, without weakening existing warning-as-error rules.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/managedcode/mcpgateway/dotnet-code-analysis
Any agent
npx skills add managedcode/MCPGateway --skill dotnet-code-analysis
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/managedcode/MCPGateway

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 58 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,888 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin 100% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00058 $0.01888
Opus 5 $0.00029 $0.00944
Sonnet 5 $0.00012 $0.00378
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00189

Measured yesterday against content hash 3f4abc63ac49, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

dotnet-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 yesterday.

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.

Origin

This is a copy

100% identical to dotnet-code-analysis — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

.codex/skills/dotnet-code-analysis/SKILL.md · 192 lines

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 AnalysisLevel or AnalysisMode guidance
  • 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.

  1. Never disable or remove TreatWarningsAsErrors or WarningsAsErrors if the project has set them. Do not comment them out, set to false, wrap in a condition, or add <TreatWarningsAsErrors>false</TreatWarningsAsErrors> to make the build pass.
  2. Never add <NoWarn> or #pragma warning disable for warnings the user chose to treat as errors, unless the user explicitly approves the suppression.
  3. Never silently downgrade severity in .editorconfig (e.g. error to warning or none) to make a build succeed.
  4. 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.
  5. 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]

Read the full file on GitHub · 192 lines

Files

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.

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 192 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 3f4abc63ac49

Subscribe to this mod's changes

dotnet-code-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository managedcode/MCPGateway (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 1,888 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to dotnet-code-analysis, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.