Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes competence — no padding explaining what HTTP mocking is, and lines like 'WireMock writes to JUL by default; route to your project's logger to capture stub-match misses' are earned knowledge. It falls short of anchor 5 because the full JUnit 4 @Rule example with imports is a legacy pattern that could be trimmed to a pointer alongside the quickstart link.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: copy-paste-ready Maven/Gradle snippets, JUnit 4 and JUnit 5 stub examples, verify() code, and CI YAML. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5 — the dynamic-port guidance says to 'read the assigned port via WireMockRuntimeInfo' without showing the code, and the Gradle snippet uses a '3.x' placeholder instead of a concrete pinned version.

Workflow Clarity

Sections sequence logically (install, author stubs, matching, verification, CI) and verification acts as an explicit checkpoint ('Always verify() the expected request was made' in the anti-patterns table). It does not reach anchor 5 because the sequence is implicit in section order rather than an explicit ordered workflow, though it stays above anchor 3 since checkpoints are stated, not missing.

Progressive Disclosure

Verified against the actual bundle: both referenced files exist, are one level deep, and contain no nested references. The matcher DSL and scenario detail are appropriately split into references/matchers-and-scenarios.md with their contents enumerated in the body, and Mountebank is clearly signaled in both Limitations and References — a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references matching anchor 5.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete capabilities — 'stub it with WireMock so tests run offline', 'faults such as timeouts and 500 responses', 'request verification and parallel-safe ports' — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's actions. It exceeds anchor 4 because there are no minor gaps: stubbing, fault injection, verification, and port safety are all named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: when ('Use whenever Java/JVM tests call a slow, flaky, rate-limited or paid HTTP API') and what (stub with WireMock, faults, verification, parallel-safe ports). The when-clause is explicit with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5 rather than the softer anchor 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ('slow, flaky, rate-limited or paid HTTP API', 'Java/JVM tests', 'tests run offline'), but common synonyms like 'mock HTTP', 'fake API server', or 'test double' are absent. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing matches anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Java/JVM tests' plus the named tool (WireMock) define a clear niche with distinct triggers, and the Mountebank sentence explicitly draws the protocol boundary (TCP, SMTP, LDAP, gRPC). Minimal conflict risk fits anchor 5; the JVM qualifier is a strong discriminator against generic HTTP-mocking skills.