Skip to content

Fix azure-functions skill YAML frontmatter parsing#8583

Merged
carmo-daniel merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
danielcarmo/fix-skill-parsing
May 12, 2026
Merged

Fix azure-functions skill YAML frontmatter parsing#8583
carmo-daniel merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
danielcarmo/fix-skill-parsing

Conversation

@carmo-daniel

@carmo-daniel carmo-daniel commented May 7, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary of changes

Fix invalid YAML in the azure-functions skill frontmatter so it is correctly parsed by the skill catalog.

Reason for change

The skill catalog parser expects specific YAML types for frontmatter fields:

  • argument-hint: [build-nuget|...] — square brackets are a YAML flow sequence; angle brackets produce a plain string as required

Implementation details

  • Changed argument-hint from [...] to <...>
  • Used YAML block scalar (description: >) for the description field

Test coverage

N/A — skill metadata only.

Other details

N/A

@carmo-daniel @claude
Fix azure-functions skill YAML frontmatter
5f4327e 
- Use angle brackets for argument-hint (square brackets parse as YAML array)
- Add commas between allowed-tools entries (space-separated parsed as one string)
- Use YAML block scalar for description

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (1M context) <[email protected]>
@carmo-daniel
carmo-daniel requested a review from a team as a code owner May 7, 2026 12:44
@carmo-daniel
carmo-daniel marked this pull request as draft May 7, 2026 12:45
@carmo-daniel
carmo-daniel marked this pull request as ready for review May 7, 2026 13:31
bouwkast
bouwkast requested changes May 7, 2026
View reviewed changes

@bouwkast bouwkast left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you validate that the skill was actually broken? This appears to work in the prior state for me so I'm curious as to what you saw here.

Granted it seems that the argument hint may not show up

Comment thread .claude/skills/azure-functions/SKILL.md
@pr-commenter

pr-commenter Bot commented May 7, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-05-07 15:21:22

Comparing candidate commit 85aead8 in PR branch danielcarmo/fix-skill-parsing with baseline commit 6d9882f in branch master.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 27 metrics, 0 unstable metrics, 60 known flaky benchmarks, 27 flaky benchmarks without significant changes.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

  • 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
  • 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

Known flaky benchmarks

These benchmarks are marked as flaky and will not trigger a failure. Modify FLAKY_BENCHMARKS_REGEX to control which benchmarks are marked as flaky.

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild net472

  • 🟥 throughput [-9202.473op/s; -8803.461op/s] or [-10.911%; -10.438%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 throughput [-7176.169op/s; -6001.683op/s] or [-7.297%; -6.102%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+309.315ms; +314.214ms] or [+153.493%; +155.924%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-43.467op/s; -39.623op/s] or [-7.821%; -7.129%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+377.259ms; +379.199ms] or [+298.058%; +299.590%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+95.563op/s; +99.017op/s] or [+12.600%; +13.055%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+390.628ms; +392.073ms] or [+345.691%; +346.970%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.308KB; +1.308KB] or [+27.529%; +27.541%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+471 bytes; +472 bytes] or [+9.977%; +9.987%]
  • 🟩 execution_time [-15.741ms; -11.573ms] or [-7.351%; -5.405%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.272KB; +1.272KB] or [+27.502%; +27.510%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.307KB; +1.307KB] or [+105.746%; +105.759%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-256846.155op/s; -253639.817op/s] or [-26.225%; -25.898%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+471 bytes; +472 bytes] or [+38.558%; +38.566%]
  • 🟩 execution_time [-26.996ms; -22.147ms] or [-12.039%; -9.877%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.272KB; +1.272KB] or [+105.292%; +105.304%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-143086.728op/s; -127162.480op/s] or [-20.559%; -18.271%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+10003.214op/s; +12905.670op/s] or [+6.365%; +8.212%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 throughput [+10822.308op/s; +13494.412op/s] or [+8.621%; +10.750%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+467833.900op/s; +484626.057op/s] or [+15.600%; +16.160%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 execution_time [-19.382ms; -14.991ms] or [-8.934%; -6.910%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+208371.893op/s; +262041.453op/s] or [+8.271%; +10.401%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.709ms; +300.496ms] or [+149.755%; +150.148%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.238ms; +302.513ms] or [+150.907%; +152.558%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.592ms; +303.216ms] or [+151.415%; +152.737%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+297.924ms; +298.683ms] or [+146.329%; +146.701%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+296.312ms; +299.770ms] or [+144.856%; +146.546%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.315ms; +301.789ms] or [+150.097%; +150.834%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+21.164µs; +44.730µs] or [+6.756%; +14.280%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-418.044op/s; -219.707op/s] or [-13.032%; -6.849%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.801ms; +300.477ms] or [+149.631%; +149.969%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+409.939ms; +415.623ms] or [+445.416%; +451.592%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1060.653op/s; +1190.554op/s] or [+8.716%; +9.783%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest netcoreapp3.1

  • unstable execution_time [+288.636ms; +327.638ms] or [+219.158%; +248.772%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+675.935op/s; +875.013op/s] or [+6.543%; +8.471%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net472

  • unstable execution_time [+321.833ms; +366.238ms] or [+147.976%; +168.393%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-510.650op/s; -475.044op/s] or [-46.270%; -43.044%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net6.0

  • unstable execution_time [+204.078ms; +337.295ms] or [+86.969%; +143.741%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-673.454op/s; -589.880op/s] or [-44.920%; -39.345%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+320.858ms; +329.315ms] or [+191.910%; +196.969%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-393.353op/s; -357.958op/s] or [-27.389%; -24.924%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 throughput [+17.825op/s; +40.928op/s] or [+5.124%; +11.765%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+27.305op/s; +39.435op/s] or [+5.390%; +7.785%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.165ms; +302.887ms] or [+151.661%; +152.528%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+304.847ms; +306.420ms] or [+152.760%; +153.547%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.400ms; +304.589ms] or [+151.410%; +153.013%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.293ms; +302.737ms] or [+151.299%; +152.024%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.893ms; +303.028ms] or [+148.778%; +149.834%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+305.073ms; +308.720ms] or [+154.624%; +156.473%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.662ms; +303.127ms] or [+151.407%; +152.143%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.174ms; +303.181ms] or [+150.108%; +151.108%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+63227.281op/s; +69057.792op/s] or [+12.555%; +13.713%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.084ms; +302.700ms] or [+149.289%; +150.591%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-16.587ms; -12.934ms] or [-7.713%; -6.014%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark net472

  • unstable execution_time [+4.024µs; +44.711µs] or [+0.994%; +11.044%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark net6.0

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-20.913KB; -20.892KB] or [-7.629%; -7.621%]
  • unstable execution_time [-56.040µs; -3.452µs] or [-11.076%; -0.682%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-16.508KB; -16.492KB] or [-6.018%; -6.012%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark net6.0

  • unstable execution_time [+6.780µs; +11.171µs] or [+16.025%; +26.404%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-4882.671op/s; -3059.501op/s] or [-20.555%; -12.880%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark netcoreapp3.1

  • unstable execution_time [-13.606µs; -6.260µs] or [-21.110%; -9.712%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1628.384op/s; +3184.729op/s] or [+9.991%; +19.539%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+304.543ms; +307.940ms] or [+153.933%; +155.650%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+308.884ms; +312.373ms] or [+157.221%; +158.997%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.713ms; +304.267ms] or [+151.045%; +152.323%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+29449.286op/s; +34020.674op/s] or [+5.574%; +6.439%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.351ms; +301.873ms] or [+149.698%; +150.457%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.572ms; +302.862ms] or [+151.435%; +152.083%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+302.801ms; +305.050ms] or [+153.561%; +154.702%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.205ms; +299.965ms] or [+149.245%; +149.624%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+51822699.197op/s; +59017849.559op/s] or [+37.741%; +42.980%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+420.345ms; +423.109ms] or [+522.773%; +526.211%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+961.878op/s; +1126.720op/s] or [+7.436%; +8.710%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.458ms; +300.376ms] or [+149.363%; +149.821%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+18314433.262op/s; +19261615.488op/s] or [+8.112%; +8.532%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+95871.294op/s; +104645.429op/s] or [+8.951%; +9.770%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+71234.376op/s; +106414.617op/s] or [+5.514%; +8.237%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 throughput [+67419.459op/s; +75855.582op/s] or [+6.696%; +7.534%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+48828.547op/s; +53367.376op/s] or [+8.866%; +9.691%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+73995.325op/s; +92922.817op/s] or [+8.267%; +10.382%]

Known flaky benchmarks without significant changes:

  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin netcoreapp3.1

bouwkast
bouwkast approved these changes May 11, 2026
View reviewed changes

@bouwkast bouwkast left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, I think we should get this repository excluded though from whatever is attempting to aggregate / display these skills for others. We do not have any Claude skills within the repository that would make sense to use outside of our context.

I think that this would be confusing to end users (there is a reason why we have these skills in this repository and not shared internally)

@bouwkast bouwkast added the AI Generated Largely based on code generated by an AI or LLM. This label is the same across all dd-trace-* repos label May 11, 2026
@carmo-daniel

carmo-daniel commented May 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks, I think we should get this repository excluded though from whatever is attempting to aggregate / display these skills for others. We do not have any Claude skills within the repository that would make sense to use outside of our context.

I think that this would be confusing to end users (there is a reason why we have these skills in this repository and not shared internally)

@bouwkast They are doing it to all DD repos, and, AFAIK, there is no opt-out option. We noticed the APM repos were not being indexed automatically because of a bug, so we flagged it and they fixed it, which included dd-trace-dotnet to their catalog automatically.

@carmo-daniel
carmo-daniel merged commit d43a6e5 into master May 12, 2026
101 of 104 checks passed
@carmo-daniel
carmo-daniel deleted the danielcarmo/fix-skill-parsing branch May 12, 2026 09:24
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the vNext-v3 milestone May 12, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@bouwkast bouwkast bouwkast approved these changes
@andrewlock andrewlock andrewlock approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

AI Generated Largely based on code generated by an AI or LLM. This label is the same across all dd-trace-* repos

Projects

None yet

Milestone

3.44.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@carmo-daniel @bouwkast @andrewlock