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.

2.02x

Quality

74%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

95%

2.02x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/interface-contract-verifier/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-structured with executable commands and good progressive disclosure to real bundle files, but it over-explains contract concepts Claude already knows and its batch workflow lacks the validation/feedback checkpoints the rubric requires.

Suggestions

Trim the Contract Types and Verification Rules sections to drop basic definitions (e.g. 'Requirements before method execution', LSP rules) that Claude already knows, or move them to references/design_by_contract.md.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow, e.g. after extraction check the JSON is non-empty and after verification check the report exit code, with a fix-and-retry loop on failure.

Show a short example of the report.json output or a sample violation entry so the 'Review Violations' step is concretely actionable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The Contract Types section restates basics Claude already knows ('Requirements before method execution', 'Properties always true for a class') and the Liskov Substitution Principle rules are introductory CS knowledge, so the body is mostly efficient but carries unnecessary explanation.	3 / 5
Actionability	The workflow gives concrete, executable bash commands with flags (contract_extractor.py --program ... --output ..., contract_verifier.py --old ... --new ... --output ...), with only minor gaps such as no sample report output format.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The three-step sequence (Extract → Verify → Review) is clear, but this is a batch operation over entire programs with no validation checkpoint, exit-code check, or fix-and-retry feedback loop, so per the batch-operation cap workflow clarity cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A Resources section cleanly signals one-level-deep references to the real bundle files (references/design_by_contract.md, scripts/contract_extractor.py, scripts/contract_verifier.py), with the body well organized into sections; minor gaps are that some inline conceptual content (LSP rules) could live in the reference file.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description that clearly states both the capability and concrete use-when triggers in third person, with good specificity and a distinct niche. The only mild weakness is a couple of generic phrases ('actionable guidance') and a few missing synonyms in the trigger terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions — 'Automatically detects contract violations, identifies affected methods and classes, and provides actionable guidance' — but 'actionable guidance' is somewhat generic, leaving minor coverage gaps versus the comprehensive anchor.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Verify that interface and class contracts...are preserved across program versions') and when ('Use when validating refactorings, checking API compatibility...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The 'Use when validating refactorings, checking API compatibility, verifying design-by-contract implementations' clause gives good natural keyword coverage, though a few synonymous phrasings users might say (e.g. 'LSP', 'invariants broken') are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche — design-by-contract preservation across versions — with distinct triggers (preconditions/postconditions/invariants, API compatibility) that are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE
Path: skills/interface-contract-verifier/SKILL.md
Commit: 4f38503

Reviewed: 8 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.