CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

contract-compatibility-gate

Use when a deploy should be blocked by any incompatible API contract across protocols. Combines Pact can-i-deploy, oasdiff for OpenAPI, graphql-inspector for GraphQL and buf breaking for Protobuf into one go/no-go CI step with severity thresholds and a reason per finding.

Quality

84%

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

The canonical home for this skill is testland/contract-compatibility-gate

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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.

A well-structured, information-dense body: exact commands, a precise record schema, an executable decision rule, and a convincing worked example, with implementation detail correctly pushed to a single verified one-level-deep reference. The residual gaps are minor - a slightly vague graphql-inspector capture path, a recovery loop that lives only in the example narrative, and small redundancy in the framing and repeated reference link.

Suggestions

Make the graphql-inspector capture concrete: replace "grep-parsed text or JSON action" with the exact command and output path (as done for oasdiff and buf), or name the JSON field to parse.

Promote the no-go recovery path to an explicit step in "How to use" (on no-go: fix the finding or mark ratchet: true with a migration plan, then re-run the gate) instead of leaving it in the worked-example narrative, and add a checkpoint that each tool's artifact file exists before the gate runs.

Trim the Overview opening framing sentence and consolidate the three repetitions of the references/gate-implementation-and-ci.md link into one canonical pointer in How to use plus the References section.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with tool-specific, non-obvious facts (per-tool exit-code semantics, severity maps, the unified record shape) and never explains basics Claude already knows. Minor trim opportunities remain: the "Modern services rarely speak just one protocol" framing paragraph and the reference link repeated three times (How to use, worked example, References). Efficient with minor over-explanation, matching anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Gives exact commands ("oasdiff breaking --format json", "buf breaking --error-format json", "pact-broker can-i-deploy"), an exact JSON record schema with a field-source table, and an executable (not pseudocode) gate_decision function, plus an end-to-end worked example. Minor gaps: the graphql-inspector capture is described only as "grep-parsed text or JSON action" and the full gate script is deferred to the reference file, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than fully-copy-paste anchor 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence, each cross-linked to its detail section, with the gate rule as an explicit checkpoint and a worked example showing the verdict and exit-code outcome. However, the error-recovery path ("restores the removed response and field, or marks each finding ratchet: true") exists only narratively in the worked example rather than as an explicit step, and there is no checkpoint that each tool's artifact file exists before gating - anchor 4, not the explicit-feedback-loop anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear sectioned overview (Overview, When to use, How to use, sources, record, severity, decision rule, worked example, References) with the heavy implementation detail appropriately split into a single one-level-deep reference (references/gate-implementation-and-ci.md, verified to exist and to contain the promised script, CI wiring, and artifact format). The reference is well-signaled at each point of need and the reference file points no deeper, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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: it names all four concrete tools, states the exact integration action and its outputs, and pairs it with an explicit and specific 'Use when' trigger. The only weaknesses are a few missing natural synonyms (REST, gRPC, 'breaking changes') and slight overlap risk with the per-tool skills it composes.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names four concrete tools with their subcommands ("Pact can-i-deploy", "oasdiff for OpenAPI", "graphql-inspector for GraphQL", "buf breaking for Protobuf") and concrete outputs ("one go/no-go CI step with severity thresholds and a reason per finding"). Minor gaps: the normalization-to-one-record and ratchet capabilities from the body are not mentioned, so it falls short of comprehensive anchor 5 but is well above the 1-2-action anchor 3.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Combines Pact can-i-deploy, oasdiff ... into one go/no-go CI step with severity thresholds and a reason per finding") and when ("Use when a deploy should be blocked by any incompatible API contract across protocols"). The when-clause is concrete and specific, matching the anchor-5 example rather than the could-be-more-explicit anchor 4.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "deploy", "blocked", "incompatible API contract", "breaking", "Pact", "OpenAPI", "GraphQL", "Protobuf", "CI". A few natural terms users would say are missing ("REST", "gRPC", "breaking changes", "API compatibility"), keeping it below the comprehensive-synonyms anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (unified multi-protocol contract gate for deployments) with tool-specific triggers, but the sibling per-tool skills it orchestrates cover adjacent triggers, so a single-protocol request like "check oasdiff breaking before deploy" could loosely match. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk, matching anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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

testland/qa

Path

plugins/qa-contract-testing/skills/contract-compatibility-gate/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.