csharp-dotnet-code-checklist

name

csharp-dotnet-code-checklist

description

Review C#, ASP.NET Core, and .NET 10 pull requests or code diffs with a practical checklist focused on correctness, nullability, async/await, EF Core, DI, security, performance, observability, and tests. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a C#/.NET code review, PR review, diff review, checklist-based review, best-practices validation, 架构审查, or wants actionable findings instead of style-only comments.

C# / .NET Code Checklist

Review C#, ASP.NET Core, and .NET changes like a pragmatic senior engineer. Default to diff review, not full-repo style commentary.

Compatibility

Best when a git diff, PR patch, changed files, or file paths are available. When repo context exists, run scripts/inspect_dotnet_repo.ts first to collect target frameworks, nullable, analyzer, ASP.NET Core, EF Core, test, and CI signals before judging conventions.

Workflow

1. Start from the diff, changed files, or the exact snippets the user highlighted.

2. If repo context exists, run the bundled fact collector first:

   node --no-warnings --experimental-strip-types "{baseDir}\scripts\inspect_dotnet_repo.ts" --path "<repo>"
   

   Use that JSON to ground recommendations about target frameworks, nullable, analyzers, ASP.NET Core, EF Core, test stack, and CI.

3. Pull only the nearby context needed to verify behavior and contracts.

4. Prioritize correctness, nullability, async/cancellation, disposal/lifetimes, security, data access, and real hot-path performance.

5. Report only evidence-based findings. If context is missing, say the assumption instead of guessing.

6. Reply in the user's language.

Strong findings

Raise issues when the change is likely to cause:

• incorrect behavior or broken invariants
• runtime failures, null bugs, race conditions, deadlocks, or disposal bugs
• security leaks or missing access control
• expensive queries or meaningful hot-path regressions
• weak logging, swallowed exceptions, or missing cancellation
• behavior changes without useful test coverage

Do not over-report formatting nits, speculative micro-optimizations, or preference-only comments.

Output

Use this shape:

Review summary

• Scope:
• Overall risk:
• Top themes:

Findings

1. [severity] Short title
   • Where:
   • Why it matters:
   • Evidence:
   • Suggested change:

Checks performed

• correctness / invariants
• contracts / validation
• nullability
• async / cancellation / concurrency
• disposal / lifetimes
• data access
• security
• performance
• diagnostics / tests

Residual risks / follow-ups

• Missing context, unanswered questions, or unverified areas

Use severities blocker, high, medium, minor.

Load references/review-dimensions.md when the diff touches EF Core, ASP.NET Core, DI, tests, trimming/AOT, or modern C# features.