701-technologies-openapi
Use when you need framework-agnostic OpenAPI 3.x guidance — spec structure, metadata and versioning, paths and operations, reusable schemas, security schemes, examples, documentation quality, contract validation (e.g. Spectral), breaking-change awareness, and handoffs to codegen — without choosing Spring Boot, Quarkus, or Micronaut. This should trigger for requests such as Review an OpenAPI; Improve an OpenAPI; Improve API contract; Improve API schema design. Part of cursor-rules-java project
64
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/701-technologies-openapi/SKILL.mdQuality
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 strong description that clearly defines its scope (framework-agnostic OpenAPI 3.x guidance), lists comprehensive concrete capabilities, provides explicit trigger examples, and distinguishes itself from framework-specific skills. The negative scoping ('without choosing Spring Boot, Quarkus, or Micronaut') is particularly effective for disambiguation. Minor note: the 'Part of cursor-rules-java project' is metadata noise but doesn't significantly detract.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: spec structure, metadata and versioning, paths and operations, reusable schemas, security schemes, examples, documentation quality, contract validation (Spectral), breaking-change awareness, and handoffs to codegen. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (framework-agnostic OpenAPI 3.x guidance covering spec structure, schemas, security, validation, etc.) and 'when' ('Use when you need...', 'This should trigger for requests such as...'). Explicit trigger guidance is present. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'Review an OpenAPI', 'Improve an OpenAPI', 'Improve API contract', 'Improve API schema design', 'OpenAPI 3.x', 'Spectral', 'security schemes'. Good coverage of variations a user might naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly carves out a distinct niche: framework-agnostic OpenAPI 3.x guidance, explicitly excluding Spring Boot, Quarkus, and Micronaut. This negative scoping makes it very unlikely to conflict with framework-specific skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a reasonable framework for OpenAPI contract review and improvement, with clear constraints and a defined workflow. However, it lacks concrete, executable examples (no sample OpenAPI snippets, no before/after patterns, no linting command output examples), making it more of a process guide than an actionable skill. The workflow steps are too abstract to score highly on actionability or workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add concrete OpenAPI spec snippets showing good vs bad patterns (e.g., a well-structured paths section, proper use of $ref for reusable schemas, correct security scheme declaration) to improve actionability.
Embed specific linting/validation commands within the workflow steps (e.g., 'Run `spectral lint openapi.yaml` and fix all errors before proceeding to step 4') to create explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops.
Include a concrete example of a breaking-change check command and expected output to make the 'breaking-change awareness' coverage actionable rather than aspirational.
Remove or condense the 'What is covered' bullet list — it describes the skill's scope but doesn't teach Claude anything actionable; a single sentence would suffice.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 'What is covered' bullet list and scope statement add some value but are somewhat verbose for Claude. The constraints section includes useful build commands but also repeats edge-case patterns that Claude generally knows how to handle. The introductory framing could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete build/verify commands (e.g., `./mvnw compile`, `./mvnw clean verify`) and references a detailed guide, but lacks any executable OpenAPI examples, sample spec snippets, or concrete before/after patterns. The workflow steps are high-level directives rather than specific, copy-paste-ready guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four workflow steps provide a reasonable sequence (read → gather → apply → verify), and verification is mentioned. However, the steps are abstract ('Apply technology-aligned changes') with no explicit validation checkpoints between steps, no feedback loops for failed linting or breaking-change detection, and no concrete commands tied to each step. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references `references/701-technologies-openapi.md` for detailed guidance, which is good one-level-deep disclosure. However, no bundle files were provided to verify the reference exists or is well-structured, and the SKILL.md itself contains a fair amount of inline content (the full 'What is covered' list, constraints) that could potentially be better organized or split. The reference path is clearly signaled though. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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.
- Repository
- jabrena/cursor-rules-java
- Commit
3fa5789
- 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.