api-mock-generator
Api Mock Generator - Auto-activating skill for API Development. Triggers on: api mock generator, api mock generator Part of the API Development skill category.
36
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.02xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/15-api-development/api-mock-generator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%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 description is essentially a placeholder that restates the skill name without providing any meaningful detail about capabilities, use cases, or trigger scenarios. It lacks concrete actions, natural trigger terms, and explicit guidance on when Claude should select this skill. The duplicate trigger term suggests auto-generated content with no human refinement.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Generates mock API endpoints, creates stub responses with realistic data, simulates REST/GraphQL APIs for testing.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user needs to create mock APIs, fake endpoints, stub responses, test servers, or simulate API behavior for frontend development.'
Expand trigger terms to include natural variations users would say: 'mock server', 'fake API', 'stub endpoints', 'API simulation', 'test API responses', 'mock data'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a domain ('API Development') and a tool name ('Api Mock Generator') but does not describe any concrete actions. There are no specific capabilities listed like 'generates mock endpoints', 'creates stub responses', or 'simulates API behavior'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' beyond restating the skill name, and the 'when' clause is just the skill name repeated as a trigger. There is no explicit 'Use when...' guidance with meaningful trigger scenarios. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are just 'api mock generator' repeated twice. There are no natural variations users would say such as 'mock API', 'fake API responses', 'stub endpoints', 'test server', 'mock server', or 'API simulation'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'API mock generator' is somewhat specific to a niche (generating mock APIs), which provides some distinctiveness. However, the vague 'API Development' category and lack of concrete scope could cause overlap with other API-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is an empty template with no substantive content. It contains only generic boilerplate that repeats the skill name without providing any actual guidance on API mock generation—no code, no tools, no patterns, no workflows. It fails on every dimension of the rubric.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples for generating API mocks (e.g., using MSW, json-server, Prism, or WireMock) with copy-paste ready configurations.
Define a clear workflow: e.g., 1) Parse OpenAPI spec, 2) Generate mock handlers, 3) Validate mock responses against schema, 4) Start mock server—with explicit validation steps.
Remove all generic boilerplate ('This skill provides automated assistance...') and replace with domain-specific instructions that assume Claude's competence.
Add references to supporting files or examples for advanced scenarios like GraphQL mocking, authentication simulation, or dynamic response generation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and boilerplate. It explains nothing Claude doesn't already know, repeats the trigger phrase 'api mock generator' excessively, and provides zero domain-specific information or code. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is no concrete guidance whatsoever—no code examples, no commands, no API mock generation patterns, no library recommendations, no executable steps. Every section is vague and abstract. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined. There are no steps, no sequence, no validation checkpoints. The skill claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but delivers none. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic block of generic text with no structure pointing to detailed resources, no references to supporting files, and no bundle files exist to support it. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
3a2d27d
- 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.