702-technologies-wiremock
Use when you need framework-agnostic WireMock guidance — stub design, JSON or programmatic mappings, precise request matching, response bodies and faults, classpath fixtures, isolation and reset between tests, verification of calls, dynamic ports and base URLs, and avoiding flaky stubs — without choosing Spring Boot, Quarkus, or Micronaut. Part of the skills-for-java project
77
71%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/702-technologies-wiremock/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 WireMock), lists numerous specific capabilities, and includes explicit 'Use when' guidance along with exclusion criteria for disambiguation. The explicit mention of what it does NOT cover (Spring Boot, Quarkus, Micronaut) is particularly effective for skill selection in a multi-skill environment. Minor note: the trailing 'Part of the skills-for-java project' is metadata noise but doesn't significantly detract.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: stub design, JSON/programmatic mappings, request matching, response bodies and faults, classpath fixtures, isolation and reset, verification of calls, dynamic ports and base URLs, and avoiding flaky stubs. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (framework-agnostic WireMock guidance covering stub design, mappings, matching, etc.) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when' clause at the start. Also specifies when NOT to use it (when choosing Spring Boot, Quarkus, or Micronaut), which strengthens the trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'WireMock', 'stub', 'JSON mappings', 'request matching', 'response bodies', 'faults', 'verification', 'dynamic ports', 'flaky stubs'. Also explicitly names frameworks it does NOT cover (Spring Boot, Quarkus, Micronaut), helping with disambiguation. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive by explicitly scoping to framework-agnostic WireMock and excluding Spring Boot, Quarkus, and Micronaut. This creates a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with framework-specific WireMock skills or general testing skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
42%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill functions primarily as a routing/overview document that delegates all substantive guidance to a reference file. While it excels at progressive disclosure and cross-referencing related skills, it provides almost no actionable content — no code examples, no concrete WireMock DSL patterns, no request matching examples. A reader (or Claude) gains very little executable knowledge from the skill body alone.
Suggestions
Add at least 2-3 concrete, executable WireMock examples (e.g., a JSON mapping stub, a Java DSL stub with request matching, and a verification call) so the skill body itself is actionable without requiring the reference file.
Include a brief workflow for the most common task — e.g., 1. Start WireMock on dynamic port, 2. Register stub, 3. Run test, 4. Verify calls, 5. Reset — with explicit validation checkpoints.
Remove or condense the 'What is covered' bullet list since it merely previews the reference file's content without teaching anything; replace it with a quick-start example.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is relatively lean but includes a 'What is covered' bullet list that largely restates the table of contents of the reference file without adding actionable value. The scope and delegation notes are useful but slightly verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | There are no concrete code examples, commands (beyond build commands in constraints), or executable guidance for WireMock stub design, request matching, response configuration, or verification. The skill describes topics rather than instructing how to do them, delegating everything to a reference file. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The constraints section includes build verification steps (compile before proposing changes, verify before promoting), which provides some workflow structure. However, there is no clear multi-step workflow for the core task of designing/debugging WireMock stubs, and no validation checkpoints for stub correctness. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill provides a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to the detailed reference file and to related framework-specific skills. Navigation is explicit and easy to follow. | 3 / 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
81b047f
- 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.