CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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. This should trigger for requests such as Design or review WireMock stubs (JSON mappings or Java DSL); Improve request matching, isolation, or reset strategy for HTTP mocks; Add or fix verification of outbound HTTP calls to a WireMock server; Debug flaky tests involving WireMock or unmatched request journals. Part of cursor-rules-java project

75

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

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

The skill body is concise, well-organized, and uses clean one-level progressive disclosure with a real reference file. Its main weakness is actionability — one of the two worked examples is conceptual rather than executable, and the principles lean on prose over concrete DSL snippets.

Suggestions

Make Example 1 (Per-test stubs and reset) executable instead of conceptual: show a real WireMock Java DSL or JUnit snippet (e.g. a @BeforeEach resetAll() plus a registerStubForThisTest() call) rather than comment-only pseudocode.

Add one or two concrete copy-paste DSL snippets alongside the prose principles — e.g. a wireMock.register(get(urlPathEqualTo(...))) mapping and a verify(..., getRequestedFor(...)) assertion — so the guidance is directly actionable.

Tighten the small redundancy between the top-level 'Constraints' build note and the body's Constraints section so each appears once.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes WireMock competence — terse numbered principles and a Role line with no padding about what HTTP mocking is. A minor repetition of the build/compile note between the intro and Constraints keeps it from being padded, so it sits at the efficient end.

3 / 3

Actionability

Example 2 gives a complete, executable JSON mapping, but Example 1 is conceptual comments only ('// Conceptual: register stubs inside each test OR reset…') with no runnable code, and most principles are guidance prose rather than copy-paste DSL snippets.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A four-step Workflow (Read reference → Gather scope → Apply → Run verification and report) is clearly sequenced, and Constraints make compilation a blocking condition with explicit 'MANDATORY' compile/verify checkpoints.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview pointing to a single, verified one-level-deep reference (references/702-technologies-wiremock.md) signaled via a dedicated Reference section and inline link, with content appropriately split into sections.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

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.

The description is specific, trigger-rich, and explicitly scopes both what and when, with deliberate boundary-setting against framework-specific skills. It is a strong, well-targeted description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates many concrete actions — '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' — matching the 'multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

It opens with an explicit 'Use when…' clause and adds 'This should trigger for requests such as…', clearly answering both what the skill does and when to use it.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases such as 'Design or review WireMock stubs', 'Add or fix verification of outbound HTTP calls to a WireMock server', and 'Debug flaky tests involving WireMock or unmatched request journals' are natural phrasings a user would say, giving good coverage.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'framework-agnostic … without choosing Spring Boot, Quarkus, or Micronaut' scoping carves a clear niche and avoids overlap with the framework integration-test skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
jabrena/cursor-rules-java
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.