CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

api-testing-observability-api-mock

You are an API mocking expert specializing in realistic mock services for development, testing, and demos. Design mocks that simulate real API behavior and enable parallel development.

48

Quality

50%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/api-testing-observability-api-mock/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is jbvc/api-testing-observability-api-mock

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%

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 and reasonably lean with actionable directives, but it lacks executable examples and validation checkpoints, and its single referenced resource file is missing from the bundle, leaving all dimensions at the mid-level anchor.

Suggestions

Create the missing `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or remove the reference) so the signaled navigation actually resolves.

Add a concrete minimal example — e.g. a sample mock route with a scenario toggle and a command to run the mock server — to lift actionability toward level 3.

Insert a validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g. "verify the mock returns the expected status/body for each scenario before delivering") to strengthen workflow clarity.

Trim the redundant "Context" section or fold its unique content into the description to improve conciseness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean and directive, but the "Context" section restates the description ("create mock APIs for development, testing, or demonstration purposes... simulate production API behavior") and adds little new information, so it could be tightened rather than earning the fully-lean level 3.

2 / 3

Actionability

The instructions give specific, actionable directives (clarify contract/auth/error shapes, define routes/scenarios/state transitions, deterministic fixtures with randomness toggles), but provide no executable code, commands, route-definition examples, or templates, landing at 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' rather than copy-paste-ready level 3.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The instructions form a loose sequence (clarify contract → define routes → provide fixtures → document → open playbook), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops for verifying the mock behaves correctly, matching the 'sequence present but checkpoints missing' anchor.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The short body is well organized into clear sections and signals a one-level-deep reference ("resources/implementation-playbook.md"), but that referenced file does not exist in the bundle, so the navigation it promises is broken — capping disclosure below level 3.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 identifies a clear niche and a couple of concrete actions but lacks an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and broad natural-language trigger coverage, leaving every dimension at the mid-level anchor.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user needs mock APIs, stubs, or fake services for frontend/integration testing, demos, or parallel development."

Broaden trigger terms to include common variations users say: "mock server", "stub", "fake API", "simulate API responses", "API sandbox".

Enumerate a few more concrete actions (e.g. "define mock routes, scenarios, and state transitions; serve deterministic fixtures") to lift specificity toward level 3.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and a few actions ("Design mocks that simulate real API behavior and enable parallel development") but does not enumerate a comprehensive list of distinct concrete actions, so it sits at the 'names domain and some actions' anchor rather than the multi-action level 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; per the judging guidelines a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user might say ("API mocking", "mock services") but omits common variations such as "mock server", "stub", "fake API", or "simulate API responses", so coverage is partial rather than the broad level-3 set.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"API mocking" / "mock services" is a recognizable niche, but without explicit trigger terms it could still overlap with general testing or development skills, matching the 'somewhat specific but could overlap' anchor rather than the clearly-distinct level 3.

2 / 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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
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.