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 Plinth Toolkit

Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/702-technologies-wiremock/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

70%

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

A well-structured overview with strong progressive disclosure and a clear, validated workflow, but it leans on the reference file for all executable content and carries some redundant trigger phrasing, leaving conciseness and actionability at the mid level.

Suggestions

Surface at least one copy-paste-ready WireMock stub or verify snippet (JSON mapping or Java DSL) directly in SKILL.md so the body is actionable without forcing a jump to the reference.

Remove or compress the 'When to use this skill' section, which duplicates the frontmatter description's trigger list verbatim, to reduce token redundancy.

Make the workflow steps more concrete — replace 'Apply technology-aligned changes' with sub-steps that name the reference's example patterns (e.g., per-test reset, precise matching, bodyFileName fixtures) so the sequence is executable rather than abstract.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and does not explain WireMock basics Claude already knows, but the 'When to use this skill' section duplicates the frontmatter description's trigger phrases verbatim, so it could be tightened (anchor 2).	2 / 3
Actionability	Concrete commands ('./mvnw compile', './mvnw clean verify') and delegation targets are present, but the workflow steps are abstract ('Apply technology-aligned changes... following the reference patterns') and all executable code lives in the reference file rather than the body, leaving guidance incomplete (anchor 2).	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear 4-step sequence with explicit validation (MANDATORY compile before edits, VERIFY before promoting) and explicit feedback loops (three EDGE CASE items covering ambiguity, missing context, and constraint conflicts), matching the anchor for clear sequence with validation and error recovery.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	A clear overview that points one level deep to the real, existing references/702-technologies-wiremock.md (verified present), well-signaled in both the Workflow and Reference sections, with detail appropriately split into the reference file.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

90%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A highly specific, well-triggered, and well-scoped description that clearly answers both what and when and defers cleanly to sibling skills. The only weakness is second-person voice ('you need'), which costs it the top specificity score under this rubric.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person / imperative without 'you' (e.g., 'Provides framework-agnostic WireMock guidance for stub design, request matching... Use when designing or reviewing WireMock stubs...') to recover the specificity penalty for second-person voice.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists 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'), which is comprehensive (anchor 3); however it uses second-person voice ('Use when you need framework-agnostic WireMock guidance'), which the rubric penalizes by reducing specificity by 1.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (the detailed capability list) and when ('Use when you need...', 'This should trigger for requests such as...'), matching the anchor for clearly answering both with explicit triggers.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural triggers a user would say are well covered ('Design or review WireMock stubs (JSON mappings or Java DSL)', 'Debug flaky tests involving WireMock or unmatched request journals'), matching the 'good coverage of natural terms' anchor.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Has a clear niche — 'without choosing Spring Boot, Quarkus, or Micronaut' with explicit deferral to integration-test and OpenAPI skills — making it unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: jabrena/cursor-rules-java
Path: skills/702-technologies-wiremock/SKILL.md
Commit: fdaf68c

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.