Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

health-check(健康检查)

health-check 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

health-check 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为调用外部服务;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 53,999。

总安装 517周安装 22GitHub Stars 315下载 181核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:health-check(健康检查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit
仓库路径:skills/health-check
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit --skill health-check
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit --skill health-check

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

提供基于数据驱动的项目健康度评估方法,按维度打分。适用于代码质量、测试覆盖与架构反模式检测。可结合 Roslyn MCP 工具获取具体指标而非主观判断。每个维度需提供 A-F 等级及依据数据点说明。建议优先处理高影响且易利用的缺陷项。health-check 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/health-check

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit --skill healt…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要调用外部服务,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

health-check 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit --skill health-check。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

health-check 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

health-check 需要什么权限?

权限级别是调用外部服务。该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

health-check 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

health-check 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 517 次,近一周安装 22 次,下载 181 次,GitHub 315 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

health-check 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
health-check

健康检查 · 本页

517315调用外部服务未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Health Check

Core Principles

  1. Data-driven assessment — Use MCP tools for every dimension. get_diagnostics for build health, detect_antipatterns for code quality, detect_circular_dependencies for architecture, get_test_coverage_map for testing, find_dead_code for dead code. Gut feeling is not a grade.
  2. Letter grades with justification — Every dimension gets A (90+), B (80+), C (70+), D (60+), or F (<60). Every grade includes the specific data points that produced it. "B in Code Quality" means nothing. "B in Code Quality: 3 anti-patterns in 2,400 lines (1.25 per 1K)" is actionable.
  3. Actionable recommendations — Every grade below A comes with specific, prioritized fix suggestions. "Improve test coverage" is not actionable. "Add test classes for OrderService, PaymentProcessor, and ShippingCalculator (3 production types without tests)" is.
  4. Comparative baselines — Grade against.NET best practices, not perfection. Zero warnings is aspirational. Fewer than 1 warning per 1K lines of code is excellent. Context matters.
  5. Non-judgmental tone — Health checks are diagnostic, not punitive. A project with a C grade has a clear improvement path. Frame findings as opportunities, not failures.

Patterns

8-Dimension Health Assessment

Run all dimensions. Each uses specific MCP tools and produces a letter grade.

Dimension 1: Build Health

Tool: dotnet build --no-restore
Metric: Error count, warning count
GradeCriteria
A0 errors, 0 warnings
B0 errors, 1-5 warnings
C0 errors, 6-15 warnings
D0 errors, 16-30 warnings
FAny errors, or 30+ warnings

Dimension 2: Code Quality

Tool: MCP detect_antipatterns(projectFilter: each project)
Metric: Anti-pattern count per 1K lines of code
GradeCriteria
A0 anti-patterns
B< 0.5 per 1K lines
C0.5 - 1.5 per 1K lines
D1.5 - 3.0 per 1K lines
F> 3.0 per 1K lines

Common anti-patterns detected: async void, sync-over-async, new HttpClient(), DateTime.Now, broad catch blocks, string interpolation in logging, missing CancellationToken.

Dimension 3: Architecture

Tool: MCP get_project_graph — check dependency direction
Tool: MCP detect_circular_dependencies(scope: "projects") — find cycles
Tool: MCP detect_circular_dependencies(scope: "types", projectFilter: each) — type-level cycles
GradeCriteria
ACorrect dependency direction, 0 circular deps (project or type level)
BCorrect dependency direction, 1-2 type-level cycles (no project cycles)
C1-2 minor direction issues, or 3-5 type-level cycles
DProject-level circular dependency, or significant layer violations
FMultiple project-level cycles, no discernible architecture

Dimension 4: Test Coverage

Tool: MCP get_test_coverage_map(projectFilter: each production project)
Metric: Percentage of production types with corresponding test classes
GradeCriteria
A90%+ types have test classes
B75-89% types have test classes
C50-74% types have test classes
D25-49% types have test classes
F< 25% types have test classes

Note: This is structural coverage (test class exists), not runtime line coverage. A test class existing does not guarantee thorough testing, but its absence guarantees none.

Dimension 5: Dead Code

Tool: MCP find_dead_code(scope: "solution", kind: "all", maxResults: 50)
Metric: Count of unused types, methods, and properties
GradeCriteria
A0-2 dead symbols
B3-8 dead symbols
C9-15 dead symbols
D16-25 dead symbols
F25+ dead symbols

Note: Some false positives are expected (reflection, DI conventions). Verify before penalizing.

Dimension 6: API Surface

Tool: MCP get_public_api(typeName: each public type) — review public API design
Tool: MCP find_references(symbolName: public members) — check for overexposed APIs
GradeCriteria
AMinimal public surface, proper return types, consistent naming
BMostly clean, 1-2 overexposed types
CSeveral types expose internal details, inconsistent return types
DPublic APIs leak implementation, mixed return type patterns
FNo API design consideration, everything is public

Check for:

  • Services that should be internal but are public
  • Methods returning Task instead of Task<Result<T>> for operations that can fail
  • Inconsistent return types across similar endpoints (some TypedResults, some IResult)
  • Public setters on types that should be immutable

Dimension 7: Security Posture

Tool: dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive
Tool: MCP detect_antipatterns — filter for security-related patterns
Scan: Hardcoded secrets, connection strings in code, missing auth attributes
GradeCriteria
A0 vulnerable packages, no hardcoded secrets, auth on all endpoints
B0 critical/high vulns, 1-2 low/medium vulns, clean auth
C1-2 medium vulns, or minor auth gaps
DHigh-severity vuln, or missing auth on sensitive endpoints
FCritical vuln, hardcoded secrets, or systemic auth gaps

Dimension 8: Documentation

Scan: XML docs on public API types and methods
Check: README exists, is current, covers setup and architecture
GradeCriteria
A90%+ public APIs have XML docs, README is comprehensive
B70-89% XML doc coverage, README covers basics
C50-69% XML doc coverage, README exists but is sparse
D< 50% XML doc coverage, minimal README
FNo XML docs, no README or severely outdated

Report Card Format

## Project Health Report

**Project:** MyApp | **Date:** 2026-03-04 | **Assessed by:** Claude (MCP-assisted)

### Grades

| Dimension | Grade | Score | Key Finding |
|-----------|-------|-------|-------------|
| Build Health | A | 95 | 0 errors, 2 pre-existing warnings |
| Code Quality | B | 82 | 3 anti-patterns in 4.2K lines |
| Architecture | A | 92 | Clean dependency direction, 0 circular deps |
| Test Coverage | C | 68 | 34/50 production types have test classes |
| Dead Code | B | 85 | 5 unused methods identified |
| API Surface | B | 80 | 2 overexposed service types |
| Security | A | 94 | 0 vulnerable packages, auth coverage complete |
| Documentation | D | 55 | 12/30 public APIs have XML docs |

### Overall GPA: 3.0 (B-)

### Priority Recommendations

1. **Test Coverage (C -> B):** Add test classes for these 16 untested types:
   - `OrderService`, `PaymentProcessor`, `ShippingCalculator` (critical path)
   - `EmailNotifier`, `InventoryChecker`, ... (supporting services)
   Estimated effort: 2-3 days

2. **Documentation (D -> C):** Add XML docs to public API types:
   - Start with the 8 controller/endpoint classes (user-facing APIs)
   - Then cover the 10 public service interfaces
   Estimated effort: 1 day

3. **Code Quality (B -> A):** Fix 3 anti-patterns:
   - `OrderService.cs:47` — Replace `DateTime.Now` with `TimeProvider.GetUtcNow()`
   - `PaymentClient.cs:23` — Replace `new HttpClient()` with `IHttpClientFactory`
   - `NotificationHandler.cs:12` — Replace `async void` with `async Task`
   Estimated effort: 1 hour

GPA Calculation

Convert letter grades to points: A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, D=1.0, F=0.0 GPA = average of all 8 dimension scores.

GPA RangeOverall Assessment
3.5 - 4.0Excellent — production-ready, well-maintained
3.0 - 3.4Good — solid foundation, minor improvements needed
2.5 - 2.9Fair — functional but accumulating tech debt
2.0 - 2.4Needs Work — significant improvements required
< 2.0Critical — major structural issues to address

Quick Health Check

For a rapid assessment, run dimensions 1-4 only:

QUICK HEALTH (4 dimensions):
1. Build Health — dotnet build
2. Code Quality — detect_antipatterns
3. Architecture — get_project_graph + detect_circular_dependencies
4. Test Coverage — get_test_coverage_map

Use when:
- Mid-sprint checkpoint
- Quick status before a demo
- Onboarding to an unfamiliar codebase
- After a major merge

Trend Tracking

If a previous health report exists, compare grades:

### Trend

| Dimension | Previous | Current | Change |
|-----------|----------|---------|--------|
| Build Health | B | A | Improved — fixed 4 warnings |
| Code Quality | C | B | Improved — resolved 7 anti-patterns |
| Test Coverage | C | C | No change — still 68% |
| Dead Code | B | B | No change |

Track trends to show progress over time. Improving grades validate cleanup efforts.

Anti-patterns

Grading Without MCP Tools

# BAD — gut-feeling assessment
"The code looks pretty clean, I'd give it a B overall."
# No data. No specific findings. No actionable recommendations.

# GOOD — MCP-driven assessment with data
MCP: detect_antipatterns → 3 findings
MCP: get_diagnostics → 2 warnings
MCP: get_test_coverage_map → 68% coverage
"Code Quality: B (3 anti-patterns in 4.2K lines = 0.71 per 1K).
 Specific anti-patterns: DateTime.Now in OrderService.cs:47, ..."

Only Checking Build Health

# BAD — build passes, ship it
"dotnet build succeeded with 0 errors. The project is healthy!"
# Misses: 12 anti-patterns, 3 circular dependencies, 30% test coverage, 2 CVEs

# GOOD — all 8 dimensions for a complete picture
Build passes, but Architecture is D (circular deps), Test Coverage is F (15%),
and Security is D (high-severity CVE). Overall GPA: 2.1 — Needs Work.

Inflated Grades

# BAD — grading on a curve to make the project look good
15 warnings → "That's pretty good for a project this size" → Grade: B
# Absolute standards exist for a reason

# GOOD — consistent grading against defined thresholds
15 warnings → Grade C (6-15 warnings bracket)
"15 warnings puts this in the C range. Here are the 5 highest-priority
 warnings to fix to reach B (under 6 warnings)."

Recommendations Without Specifics

# BAD — vague improvement suggestions
"Improve test coverage."
"Fix code quality issues."
"Address security concerns."

# GOOD — specific, prioritized, estimated
"Add test classes for OrderService, PaymentProcessor, ShippingCalculator.
 These are on the critical path and have 0 test coverage.
 Start with OrderService — it has the most complex logic.
 Estimated effort: 4 hours for all three."

Decision Guide

ScenarioAssessment TypeDimensions
New project onboardingFull Health CheckAll 8
Mid-sprint checkpointQuick Health1-4
Pre-release quality gateFull Health CheckAll 8
After major refactorTargeted1 (Build), 3 (Architecture), 4 (Tests)
Post-dependency updateTargeted1 (Build), 7 (Security)
Tech debt prioritizationFull Health CheckAll 8, focus on lowest grades
Monthly maintenance reviewFull Health CheckAll 8 with trend comparison
Before hiring/onboardingFull Health CheckAll 8 — sets baseline for new team member
After cleanup sprintTargetedRe-grade dimensions that were cleaned up
Executive summary neededFull Health CheckAll 8 with GPA summary

平台分布

Codex

34.54%
按下载量换算63

Claude

31.22%
按下载量换算57

Cursor

18.09%
按下载量换算33

Gemini CLI

10.77%
按下载量换算19

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

调用外部服务

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills