capture-api-response-test-fixture
Capture API response test fixture.
62
43%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
99%
2.02xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/capture-api-response-test-fixture/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
22%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 too terse and lacks both concrete action details and explicit trigger guidance. While it hints at a specific niche (capturing API responses as test fixtures), it fails to provide enough information for Claude to reliably select this skill from a large pool. It needs substantial expansion to be effective.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause specifying trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to save or record API responses as test fixtures, mock data, or stubs for testing.'
List specific concrete actions such as 'Records HTTP responses, saves JSON/XML fixtures, generates mock data files for unit and integration tests.'
Include natural keyword variations users might say, such as 'mock', 'stub', 'snapshot', 'record response', 'fixture file', '.json fixture'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a vague action ('Capture') and a domain ('API response test fixture') but does not list any concrete actions like saving responses, mocking endpoints, generating fixture files, or specifying formats. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description only weakly addresses 'what' and completely lacks a 'when should Claude use it' clause. There are no explicit triggers or usage guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | It includes some relevant keywords like 'API response', 'test fixture' that a user might say, but misses common variations such as 'mock data', 'stub', 'snapshot', 'record response', or file format terms like '.json'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The phrase 'API response test fixture' is somewhat specific to a testing niche, but without more detail it could overlap with general API testing skills, mocking skills, or test data generation skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides good, actionable code examples for capturing API response test fixtures in two scenarios (generateText and streamText). Its main weaknesses are the lack of explicit workflow sequencing with validation checkpoints and some minor verbosity in the introductory paragraph. The references to project paths are helpful but unverifiable without bundle files.
Suggestions
Add explicit numbered workflow steps for each scenario (e.g., '1. Create script → 2. Run with pnpm tsx → 3. Copy output → 4. Verify fixture loads in test → 5. Rename and commit').
Add a validation step such as 'Run the relevant test file to confirm the fixture is correctly parsed before committing' to ensure fixture correctness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., 'we aim at storing test fixtures with the true responses from the providers' and the parenthetical about cutting). Could be tightened slightly, but generally respects Claude's intelligence. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste ready TypeScript code examples for both generateText and streamText scenarios, with specific commands (pnpm tsx), specific helper functions (saveRawChunks), and clear instructions on where to find output and how to use it. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The steps are present but not explicitly sequenced with numbered steps or validation checkpoints. For generateText, the workflow is implicit (run script → copy console output → save as fixture). For streamText, the workflow is clearer but still lacks explicit validation steps to verify the fixture is correct before use. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to fixture directories and test files are present and helpful, but no bundle files are provided to verify accuracy. The content is reasonably structured with sections for each scenario, but could benefit from a clearer quick-start overview and separation of reference paths into a dedicated section. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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 |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.