SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC java-junit

Write, review and fix Java unit tests with JUnit 5 and JUnit 6 (Jupiter), AssertJ and Mockito: assertions, parameterized and nested tests, mocking rules, deterministic time and randomness, Surefire vs Failsafe, JaCoCo coverage, optional PIT mutation testing, and guardrails for agents (never skip or delete failing tests). Use when adding, refactoring or debugging tests in Maven or Gradle projects. Framework-neutral.

github/awesome-copilot Agent Skills author: github MIT 3 files body ≈ 1 990 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 6 d ago

Write, review and fix Java unit tests with JUnit 5 and JUnit 6 (Jupiter), AssertJ and Mockito: assertions, parameterized and nested tests, mocking rules…

As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

AnalyzerSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: GitHub Copilot / VS Code Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
84
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
63/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 19, 21): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 29 steps
    • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1990 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 418: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 10 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 29 items
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.