CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

quarkus-verification

Verification loop for Quarkus projects: build, static analysis (Checkstyle, PMD, SpotBugs), tests with JaCoCo coverage, OWASP dependency and container security scans, GraalVM native compilation, health checks, and config validation. Use when verifying a Quarkus service before a PR, after major refactoring or dependency upgrades, or pre-deploy.

Quality

84%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced verification loop whose commands are executable throughout, but it is monolithic and overlong — inlining test examples, a load-test script, and CI config that belong in separate reference files, and padding with generic knowledge. Splitting the body into references and trimming known-concept explanations would lift both weak dimensions.

Suggestions

Move the three Java test-class examples, the K6 load-test script, and the GitHub Actions YAML into files under references/ (e.g., references/test-examples.md, references/ci-integration.md) and link to them from the phase sections, keeping SKILL.md to the commands and decision points.

Delete or drastically compress the sections that restate what Claude already knows: 'Metrics to Monitor', 'Common Issues to Address', 'Common Security Checks' prose, and the 'Best Practices' list of platitudes.

Consolidate the terminal 'Verification Checklist' (which duplicates the per-phase checklists) into the automated verification script's output, and add explicit fix-and-retry guidance for coverage shortfalls and CVE findings to match the build phase's feedback loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The per-phase commands are lean, but ~40% of the body pads with knowledge Claude already has: three full Java test classes demonstrating Mockito/Testcontainers/REST Assured basics, a generic 'Metrics to Monitor' list, 'Common Issues to Address' restating what Checkstyle/PMD flag, and a platitudinous 'Best Practices' section. Mostly efficient, but clearly could be tightened — the 3 anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Every phase gives copy-paste-ready commands ('mvn clean verify -DskipTests', 'mvn checkstyle:check pmd:check spotbugs:check', 'mvn package -Dnative -Dquarkus.native.container-build=true'), plus a complete executable bash script and a full CI pipeline, fully matching the anchor for executable guidance covering common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 10-phase loop with an explicit checkpoint ('If build fails, stop and fix compilation errors'), threshold enforcement (jacoco:check at 80%), and per-phase checklists; however, explicit fix-and-retry feedback loops appear only for the build and native-image phases, leaving minor validation gaps at coverage and CVE checkpoints — the 4 anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The ~480-line body is a single monolithic file with no references/ bundle at all: content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined (three Java test examples, a K6 load-test script, full GitHub Actions YAML, extensive checklists). Section headers are well-organized, placing this above the 'minimal structure' anchor but squarely at 'content that should be separate is inline'.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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.

An excellent description: it enumerates concrete, tool-specific capabilities and pairs them with an explicit, well-phrased 'Use when' trigger clause scoped to Quarkus. Only minor trigger-synonym expansion would improve it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain plus seven concrete actions with specific tools ('build, static analysis (Checkstyle, PMD, SpotBugs), tests with JaCoCo coverage, OWASP dependency and container security scans, GraalVM native compilation, health checks, and config validation'), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Verification loop for Quarkus projects: build, static analysis...') and when ('Use when verifying a Quarkus service before a PR, after major refactoring or dependency upgrades, or pre-deploy') with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'verifying a Quarkus service', 'before a PR', 'major refactoring', 'dependency upgrades', and 'pre-deploy' cover the main triggers, but common variations such as 'run tests', 'coverage check', or 'release readiness' are missing, so it falls just short of the comprehensive synonym anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The repeated Quarkus-specific framing plus GraalVM native compilation carves out a clear niche with distinct triggers, giving minimal conflict risk with generic build or test skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

affaan-m/ECC

Path

skills/quarkus-verification/SKILL.md

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.