interface-contract-verifier
Verify that interface and class contracts (preconditions, postconditions, invariants) are preserved across program versions. Use when validating refactorings, checking API compatibility, verifying design-by-contract implementations, or ensuring behavioral contracts remain intact after code changes. Automatically detects contract violations, identifies affected methods and classes, and provides actionable guidance for resolving violations while maintaining program correctness.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE --skill interface-contract-verifier82
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
85%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a well-crafted description that clearly explains what the skill does and when to use it. It excels in specificity and completeness with explicit 'Use when' guidance. The main weakness is trigger term quality - the language is somewhat technical and may not match how users naturally describe their needs.
Suggestions
Add more natural user language variations like 'breaking changes', 'interface compatibility', 'method signature changes', or 'API breaking' to improve trigger term coverage
Consider including file type triggers if applicable (e.g., specific languages or frameworks where design-by-contract is common)
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Verify interface and class contracts', 'detects contract violations', 'identifies affected methods and classes', 'provides actionable guidance for resolving violations'. Covers preconditions, postconditions, and invariants explicitly. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Verify that interface and class contracts are preserved', 'detects contract violations', 'identifies affected methods') AND when ('Use when validating refactorings, checking API compatibility, verifying design-by-contract implementations, or ensuring behavioral contracts remain intact'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'refactorings', 'API compatibility', 'design-by-contract', 'behavioral contracts', but uses more technical jargon than natural user language. Missing common variations users might say like 'breaking changes', 'interface changes', or 'contract testing'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Has a clear niche focused specifically on contract verification and design-by-contract patterns. The specific focus on preconditions, postconditions, invariants, and contract preservation distinguishes it from general code review or testing skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is well-organized and concise, effectively covering contract verification concepts without over-explaining. However, it relies heavily on external scripts without showing their output format or providing executable examples of the verification process. The workflow would benefit from explicit validation steps and a feedback loop for iterating on fixes.
Suggestions
Add an example of the report.json output format so Claude knows what violations look like and how to parse them
Include a feedback loop in the workflow: after fixing violations, re-run verification to confirm resolution
Make resolution guidance more actionable with concrete code examples showing before/after fixes for each violation type
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, assuming Claude understands programming concepts like preconditions and postconditions. No unnecessary explanations of basic concepts; every section serves a clear purpose. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete bash commands and Python docstring examples, but the scripts referenced (contract_extractor.py, contract_verifier.py) are external dependencies without showing their actual implementation or output format. The resolution guidance is abstract rather than executable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 3-step workflow is clearly sequenced, but lacks validation checkpoints. No feedback loop for handling verification failures—step 3 says 'examine violations' but doesn't specify what to do next or how to verify fixes worked. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear sections progressing from workflow to concepts to resolution. References to external files (design_by_contract.md, scripts) are one level deep and clearly signaled in the Resources section. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.