AC contract-testing
Implement consumer-driven contract testing with Pact-JS (v16). Covers consumer test writing, broker-driven provider verification, Pact Broker setup, can-i-deploy as a deployment gate, webhook-triggered verification, pending pacts, and schema-first vs consumer-first approaches (OpenAPI/Ajv, Schemathesis). Use when: "contract test," "Pact," "consumer-driven," "API contract," "provider verification," "can-i-deploy." Not for: stubbing or mocking a dependency to isolate a test — use service-virtualization; general REST/GraphQL endpoint assertions against your own API — use api-testing. Related: api-testing, service-virtualization, ci-cd-integration, test-environments.
Implement consumer-driven contract testing with Pact-JS (v16).
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, progress reporting
How to improve
- 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: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 85Steps. 31 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3919 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- low 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (6 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 671: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 98.