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 ondrasek/cc-plugins --skill dotnet-explaingit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ondrasek/cc-pluginsWrote 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/ondrasek/cc-plugins/dotnet-explain)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ondrasek/cc-plugins/dotnet-explain"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ondrasek/cc-plugins/dotnet-explain/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/ondrasek/cc-plugins/dotnet-explain"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ondrasek/cc-plugins/dotnet-explain.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 | $0.00063 | $0.00406 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00162 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
dotnet-explain 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
.NET Explain
Read-only — does not modify any files.
Context Files
skills/shared/references/explain-pattern.md— shared answer format and behaviorskills/shared/references/methodology-framework.md— shared principles, hook architectureskills/dotnet-setup/references/methodology.md— .NET-specific dimensions, rationale, adaptation rulesskills/dotnet-setup/references/analysis-checklist.md— how projects are analyzed
Example Questions
"Why Roslyn analyzers over external tools?" → Dimension 2. Roslyn analyzers run during dotnet build, integrate with IDEs, controlled via .editorconfig. No separate step needed.
"What's the coverage threshold?" → Dimension 1. 90% default; 70% for new projects; legacy: start at current.
"Should I use all 9 dimensions?" → Principles: incremental adoption. Start with testing + linting, add incrementally.
"Why Directory.Build.props?" → .NET-Specific Patterns. Centralizes MSBuild properties, avoids duplication across .csproj files.
"How does nullable reference types fit?" → Dimension 3. <Nullable>enable</Nullable> + AnalysisLevel: latest-Recommended.
"How do I disable a check?" → Each check has a [check:*] comment marker. Delete the run_check block.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 33 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 459cbd1bc637
dotnet-explain is a skill published in the GitHub repository ondrasek/cc-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 406 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
analyzing-dotnet-performance
Scans .NET code for 50 performance anti-patterns across async, memory, strings, collections, LINQ, regex, serialization, and I/O with tiered severity classification. Use when analyzing .NET code for optimization opportunities, reviewing hot paths, or auditing allocation-heavy patterns.
code-review-csharp
Perform structured code reviews of C# source code covering naming conventions, performance, security, readability, and .NET best practices. Trigger phrases include "review this C# code", "check my C# for best practices", "analyze this C# class", "find issues in my C# code".
refactoring-csharp
Rename and refactor C# symbols in a .NET solution or multi-solution monorepo with a one-shot Roslyn CLI. Use when the user asks to rename a symbol, preview impact, update references across a solution, or refactor shared projects across several solutions.
resharper-clt
Use the free official JetBrains ReSharper Command Line Tools for .NET repositories. USE FOR: jb inspectcode; jb cleanupcode; stronger C# inspections, cleanup profiles, and CI-friendly JetBrains analysis. DO NOT USE FOR: replacing tests with inspection output; ad-hoc formatting-only work when the repo intentionally…
roslynator
Use the open-source free Roslynator analyzer packages and optional CLI for .NET. USE FOR: Roslynator.Analyzers setup; Roslynator CLI checks or cleanup; C# linting, static analysis, and code-fix automation. DO NOT USE FOR: overlapping analyzer packs with no consolidation plan; formatting-only work owned by another…
stylecop-analyzers
Use the open-source free StyleCop.Analyzers package for naming, layout, documentation, and style rules in .NET projects. Use when a repo wants stricter style conventions than the SDK analyzers alone provide. USE FOR: the repo wants StyleCop.Analyzers; naming, layout, or documentation style needs stronger enforcement…