java-api-consistency-validator
Validate API consistency between two versions of Java libraries. Use when you need to compare API behavior, signatures, and exceptions between Java library versions to identify breaking changes, incompatible modifications, and behavior differences. The skill performs static analysis of Java code, compares method signatures, class definitions, interface changes, parameter types, return types, exception declarations, and generates a detailed JSON report with breaking changes, warnings, and migration guidance. Supports Java libraries and packages.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:ArabelaTso/Skills-4-SE --skill java-api-consistency-validator83
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
100%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 skill description that excels across all dimensions. It provides specific concrete actions, includes natural trigger terms developers would use, explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it, and occupies a clear niche that distinguishes it from other skills. The description uses proper third-person voice throughout.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'static analysis of Java code', 'compares method signatures, class definitions, interface changes, parameter types, return types, exception declarations', and 'generates a detailed JSON report with breaking changes, warnings, and migration guidance'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Validate API consistency...performs static analysis...generates detailed JSON report') AND when ('Use when you need to compare API behavior, signatures, and exceptions between Java library versions to identify breaking changes'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'API consistency', 'Java libraries', 'breaking changes', 'incompatible modifications', 'method signatures', 'class definitions', 'interface changes', 'migration guidance'. Good coverage of terms developers would use when comparing library versions. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very specific niche: Java library API version comparison. The combination of 'Java libraries', 'API consistency', 'version comparison', and 'breaking changes' creates a distinct trigger profile unlikely to conflict with general code analysis or documentation skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is concise and well-structured with clear CLI examples and output format documentation. However, it lacks explicit workflow steps for handling validation failures and assumes the existence of scripts without providing implementation details or verification steps. The tips section is somewhat generic and could be replaced with more actionable guidance.
Suggestions
Add explicit workflow steps: 1) Run validation, 2) Review breaking changes, 3) If breaking changes exist, document migration path, 4) Re-validate after fixes
Include error handling guidance - what to do when the validator fails or produces unexpected output
Either provide the actual validation script implementation or clarify where it comes from (is it part of this skill's files? a separate tool?)
Replace generic tips with specific examples of interpreting and acting on different types of breaking changes
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, avoiding unnecessary explanations of what Java APIs are or how validation works. Every section serves a clear purpose without padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete CLI commands and example output, but the actual validation script is referenced without showing its implementation or confirming it exists. The commands are copy-paste ready but rely on an assumed script. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is implicit (run validator, check report) but lacks explicit validation checkpoints or error recovery steps. No guidance on what to do if validation fails or how to interpret/act on specific breaking changes. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but everything is inline in one file. For a tool with multiple validation types and report formats, references to detailed documentation (e.g., REPORT_FORMAT.md, MIGRATION_GUIDE.md) would improve navigation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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.