api-contract-testing
Verifies API contracts between services using consumer-driven contracts, schema validation, and tools like Pact. Use when testing microservices communication, preventing breaking changes, or validating OpenAPI specifications.
89
86%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
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.
This is a well-crafted skill description that clearly defines its niche in API contract testing. It provides specific capabilities, names concrete tools (Pact), and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger terms. The description is concise yet comprehensive, covering both the what and when effectively.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Verifies API contracts between services', 'consumer-driven contracts', 'schema validation', and mentions specific tooling like 'Pact'. These are concrete, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Verifies API contracts between services using consumer-driven contracts, schema validation, and tools like Pact') and when ('Use when testing microservices communication, preventing breaking changes, or validating OpenAPI specifications') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'API contracts', 'consumer-driven contracts', 'Pact', 'microservices communication', 'breaking changes', 'OpenAPI specifications', 'schema validation'. These cover the main terms a developer would use when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche focused on contract testing between services, with specific triggers like 'Pact', 'consumer-driven contracts', and 'OpenAPI specifications' that are unlikely to conflict with general testing or API development skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable skill with excellent code examples covering the main Pact workflow and OpenAPI validation. Its main weaknesses are the lack of an explicit end-to-end workflow sequence (consumer → broker → provider verification) and some unnecessary definitional content. The progressive disclosure is well-handled with references to language-specific implementations.
Suggestions
Add an explicit numbered workflow section showing the full contract testing lifecycle: 1) Write consumer test → 2) Generate pact file → 3) Publish to broker → 4) Run provider verification → 5) Check 'can-i-deploy' before deploying, with validation checkpoints at each step.
Remove or significantly trim the Key Concepts table — Claude already knows what consumers, providers, and schemas are. Keep only Pact-specific terms if needed.
Add a concrete 'can-i-deploy' check step (e.g., `pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant OrderService --version $GIT_SHA --to production`) as a verification checkpoint before deployment.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The key concepts table explains terms Claude already knows (consumer, provider, schema). The best practices do/don't lists are somewhat generic. However, the code examples are lean and the overall structure is reasonably efficient. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable TypeScript and JavaScript code examples for consumer tests, provider verification, and OpenAPI validation. The Pact examples are copy-paste ready with realistic patterns including matchers, state handlers, and error scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The implicit workflow is consumer test → publish to broker → provider verification, but this sequence is never explicitly stated. There are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for what to do when contract verification fails. The pieces are all present but not sequenced. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview with core examples inline and additional implementations (Python, Java, CI/CD) properly referenced as one-level-deep links. The content is well-organized with appropriate separation between quick-start material and advanced topics. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- secondsky/claude-skills
- Commit
88da5ff
- 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.