What does this skill do, and when should you use it?
This skill supports building, reviewing, refactoring, and architecting ASP.NET Core web applications. It covers Blazor, Razor Pages, MVC, Minimal APIs, controller-based Web APIs, SignalR, gRPC, middleware, dependency injection, security, testing, performance, deployment, and upgrades. Its workflow first confirms the target framework, SDK, and application model, then loads only the references relevant to the task. It is a good fit for .NET developers who want current Microsoft guidance without imposing unnecessary migrations between application models.
It asks the agent to confirm the target framework, SDK, and application model; select an application model for new apps or major refactors; structure Program.cs, dependency injection, configuration, middleware, routing, logging, and static assets; choose one primary reference for Blazor, Razor Pages, MVC, or APIs; add data, security, realtime, gRPC, background-work, testing, performance, operations, and upgrade references as needed; start new code from the appropriate dotnet new template; and verify Microsoft Learn or the ASP.NET Core documentation repository when a task depends on the latest feature.
- A .NET developer creating a new ASP.NET Core app and choosing between Blazor, Razor Pages, MVC, or an API model.
- A team maintaining an existing web app and reviewing Program.cs, dependency injection, configuration, middleware, or routing.
- An engineer building Minimal APIs or controller APIs who needs guidance on validation, ProblemDetails, OpenAPI, health checks, or rate limiting.
- A developer adding authentication, authorization, Identity, CORS, CSRF, HTTPS, SignalR, gRPC, or hosted services.
- A team upgrading an older ASP.NET Core solution and handling target frameworks, breaking changes, obsolete APIs, or migrations.
How do you install this skill?
- The agent metadata label “Windows only” may incorrectly restrict the skill's actual cross-platform applicability and should be clarified before publication.
- The supplied material does not include the selected skill's LICENSE.txt, tests, or CI evidence, so licensing and reproducibility cannot be confirmed.
- Claims about current versions require verification against Microsoft Learn; the static material alone cannot ensure that .NET 10 guidance remains accurate.
- Shell / CLI
- Network access
- Local filesystem
.NET SDK
Run this in Codex: $skill-installer aspnet-core. The repository README states that curated skills can be installed by name; restart Codex after installation. The supplied README does not provide the individual skill's LICENSE.txt contents.
tmp="$(mktemp -d)"
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/openai/skills.git "$tmp"
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -R "$tmp/skills/.curated/aspnet-core" ~/.claude/skills/
rm -rf "$tmp"Generated from the source repository and skill path; it copies only this skill's folder. If the author's install steps above differ, follow those first. To scope it to one project, replace ~/.claude/skills with that project's .claude/skills.
How do you use this skill?
Once installed, send your agent any of these to trigger it:
- Review this ASP.NET Core Web API’s middleware, dependency injection, and authentication configuration against current official guidance.
In a Codex session with the skill installed, give it a concrete ASP.NET Core task, for example: “Review this ASP.NET Core Web API’s middleware, dependency injection, and authentication configuration against current official guidance.” For new apps or major refactors, the workflow reads stack-selection.md and program-and-pipeline.md before selecting one primary application-model reference.
What are this skill's strengths and limitations?
- Covers multiple ASP.NET Core application models and common cross-cutting concerns.
- Uses a staged workflow based on the target framework and application model, with focused reference loading.
- Favors built-in capabilities such as WebApplicationBuilder, DI, configuration, logging, ProblemDetails, OpenAPI, health checks, and Identity.
- Includes versioning and upgrade guidance plus a map to official documentation.
- The listed workflow depends on reference files whose contents are not included in the supplied material.
- No test suite, scripts, assets, or sample project are shown, so practical validation coverage cannot be confirmed from this source alone.
- Tasks involving the latest features require additional verification against Microsoft Learn or the ASP.NET Core documentation repository.
- The README marks the overall repository as deprecated and directs users to the OpenAI Plugins repository for current Codex skill and plugin examples.
How does this skill compare with similar options?
Side by side with related skills; every score comes from the same FSRS standard.
| Skill | FS score | Stars | Last updated | License |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASP.NET Core Engineering Guide this page ✓ OpenAI · Official | 54 · Use with care | ★ 28k | 4mo ago | — |
| Angular Developer Skill | 63 · Recommended | ★ 685 | 11d ago | — |
| VS Code Agents Window Sessions ✓ Microsoft · Official | 56 · Use with care | ★ 194k | 11d ago | MIT |
| Component Fixtures for Screenshot Testing ✓ Microsoft · Official | 53 · Use with care | ★ 194k | 11d ago | MIT |
| Microsoft 365 Agents SDK for .NET ✓ Microsoft · Official | 53 · Use with care | ★ 2.7k | 3mo ago | MIT |
How did FollowSkills review this skill?
The skill promotes loading only the minimum references, built-in security controls, secret management, HTTPS, authorization boundaries, and avoiding committed credentials. No malware, covert exfiltration, destructive default, or disproportionate permission is visible, so trust is relatively strong. Points are deducted because user confirmation, rollback, dependency-security review, and complete data-flow disclosure are absent; license information remains unknown in the supplied material.
The workflow, reference routing, and ASP.NET Core architecture guidance are largely self-consistent and include versioning, error handling, logging, and configuration-failure advice. Points are deducted because there are no scripts, test suites, CI coverage, input validation details, or diagnosable failure outputs, and static review cannot reproduce key paths; the calibration therefore keeps the score at or below 10.
The intended coverage includes Blazor, Razor Pages, MVC, Minimal APIs, controllers, SignalR, gRPC, security, testing, and upgrades. The workflow also asks the user to establish the framework and application model. Points are deducted because non-fit boundaries and semantic trigger conditions remain broad; the agent metadata says Windows only, which conflicts with the cross-platform scope in the skill text. No Chinese-language support or mainland-China network reachability is documented.
The folder structure, reading order, routing references, naming, and progressive-loading approach are clear, and the README documents installation and repository deprecation. Points are deducted because the selected skill's license, version policy, changelog, maintenance ownership, and update path are not fully shown in the supplied skill material; examples, FAQs, and systematic troubleshooting are also limited.
The material directly addresses application-model selection, pipelines, data, security, real-time work, testing, and upgrades, so it plausibly supports the core ASP.NET Core guidance task. Points are deducted because no representative outputs, runnable examples, or execution evidence are supplied, and tasks depending on omitted reference files may require substantial manual verification; static calibration caps this at 7.
The references point to Microsoft Learn, the official documentation repository, and a source map, providing meaningful traceability, and version-sensitive guidance explicitly calls for official verification. Points are deducted because no committed tests, CI results, or third-party review are provided, while the core material is primarily author-curated guidance; static calibration caps this at 5.
Open a dimension to read why it scored that way
Evidence confidence：Low — Mostly static review, author material or a limited demo; useful for discovery, not high-risk decisions.
See the full review method →