CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

133-java-testing-acceptance-tests

Use when you need to implement acceptance tests from maintainer-sanitized Gherkin scenario facts for framework-agnostic Java (no Spring Boot, Quarkus, Micronaut) — confirming @acceptance scenarios before coding, happy path with RestAssured, DB/Kafka test fixtures, WireMock for external REST only, and *AT classes run by Failsafe. This should trigger for requests such as Review Java code for acceptance tests; Apply best practices for acceptance tests in Java code; Implement acceptance tests from Gherkin scenarios in Java; Map feature files to Java step definitions; Review Cucumber acceptance tests for Java services. Part of Plinth Toolkit

70

Quality

88%

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.

The body is well-structured as an overview with an excellent single one-level-deep reference split and a workflow that has genuine validation gates (compile-before, confirm-before-code, verify-after). Its main weakness is redundancy: preconditions, compile checks, and 'read the reference' are each restated two or three times across the Constraints, Precondition, and Workflow sections, and the trigger list duplicates the frontmatter description.

Suggestions

State each invariant once: merge the 'Preconditions' paragraph into the 'PRECONDITION' constraint and drop the repeated compile/stop instructions from workflow step 1, keeping the canonical command only in the Constraints checklist.

Remove the 'When to use this skill' section — it repeats the five trigger phrases verbatim from the frontmatter description, which is already loaded into context whenever the skill is considered.

Reduce the three separate 'read the reference' mentions (BEFORE APPLYING, step 2, Reference section) to a single well-signaled pointer in the workflow step where the reference is actually consumed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body repeats itself across sections: the precondition about maintainer-sanitized scenario facts appears in 'Preconditions', the 'PRECONDITION' constraint, and workflow step 1; 'run ./mvnw compile' appears in MANDATORY, SAFETY, and step 1; 'read the reference' is stated in Constraints ('BEFORE APPLYING'), step 2, and the Reference section; and 'When to use this skill' re-lists the five trigger phrases verbatim even though the frontmatter description already carries them. It fits the anchor 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' — no concept over-explanation, but the structural redundancy keeps it below score 4, which requires only minor trims.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance is present throughout: exact commands ('./mvnw compile or mvn compile', './mvnw clean verify'), specific Maven coordinates ('rest-assured and wiremock-standalone', 'maven-failsafe-plugin'), naming conventions ('*AT' classes, '@acceptance' tags), and concrete mechanisms ('@BeforeAll coordinate propagation via System.setProperty'). It sits at 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps' — the Java/test code itself is deliberately deferred to the reference, and small gaps remain (e.g., no failsafe plugin configuration snippet inline), so it does not reach the copy-paste-ready score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow is clearly sequenced with real validation checkpoints: compile gate before changes, confirm-scenarios-before-coding gate, and a full 'clean verify' after, each with an explicit stop condition ('If compilation fails, stop immediately'). This satisfies 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. It falls short of the score-5 anchor, which requires feedback loops for error recovery — the body mandates stopping on failure rather than a fix-and-retry cycle — so score 5 does not fit better than 4.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md body is a lean ~60-line overview while the 527-line detailed reference (references/133-java-testing-acceptance-tests.md) exists, is real, and is exactly one level deep with no further nested references; the body signals it clearly in workflow step 2 and a dedicated '## Reference' section with a markdown link, plus a 'What is covered' index. This matches the anchor 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation'.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

A strong description: dense with concrete, tool-named capabilities, an explicit trigger list of natural user phrasings, and sharp scope boundaries (framework exclusions, sanitized-facts precondition) that minimize conflicts with related skills. Its only weakness is length — it packs near-reference-level detail into the description field — but it stays informative rather than padded.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete capabilities — "confirming @acceptance scenarios before coding, happy path with RestAssured, DB/Kafka test fixtures, WireMock for external REST only, and *AT classes run by Failsafe" — which is comprehensive coverage of the skill's actions with named tools and conventions. It clearly fits the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' rather than the score-4 anchor, which allows minor gaps in coverage; no meaningful capability is left unnamed.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' via the concrete capability list (RestAssured, fixtures, WireMock, Failsafe) and 'when' via the enumerated trigger requests introduced by "This should trigger for requests such as...". This matches the score-5 anchor ('clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases') and exceeds the score-4 anchor where the 'when' could be more explicit.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It provides explicit natural trigger phrasings users would say: "Review Java code for acceptance tests", "Implement acceptance tests from Gherkin scenarios in Java", "Map feature files to Java step definitions", "Review Cucumber acceptance tests for Java services", plus synonyms (Gherkin, Cucumber, feature files, step definitions, acceptance tests). This matches the comprehensive-synonyms anchor; the score-4 anchor ('a few natural terms missing') is weaker than what is present.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is sharply bounded: "framework-agnostic Java (no Spring Boot, Quarkus, Micronaut)" with explicit redirection to a framework-specific skill for those cases, and the maintainer-sanitized Gherkin precondition further narrows triggering. It fits the 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' anchor; the score-4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' is less accurate given the explicit exclusions.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

jabrena/plinth

Path

skills/133-java-testing-acceptance-tests/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.