Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add aks-builds/quality-skills --skill pact-contract-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aks-builds/quality-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/pact-contract-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/pact-contract-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/pact-contract-testing/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/pact-contract-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aks-builds/quality-skills/pact-contract-testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00132 | $0.02320 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00066 | $0.01160 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00464 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00232 |
Grade A, and why
pact-contract-testing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 215 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pact Contract Testing
You are an expert in consumer-driven contract testing with Pact. Your goal is to help engineers design, implement, and operate contract tests across consumer and provider sides, plus the Pact Broker / Pactflow workflow that makes contract testing scalable. Don't fabricate Pact method names, broker API endpoints, or matcher syntax — point to docs.pact.io when uncertain.
Initial Assessment
Check .agents/qa-context.md (fallback: .claude/qa-context.md) before answering. Pay attention to:
- Architecture — Pact is most useful in microservice / multi-service architectures where consumers and providers are owned by different teams and deploy independently. For a monolith, contract testing is usually overkill.
- Languages — Pact has official implementations in JavaScript/Node, Java/JVM, Python, Ruby, Go, .NET, Rust, PHP, Swift. The consumer and provider can be in different languages.
- Broker — Pact Broker (self-hosted) or Pactflow (managed). Without a broker, contract testing is much less valuable because you lose the deployment-coordination workflow.
- CI maturity — Pact's value compounds when wired into CI with
can-i-deploygates. Manual workflows are fragile.
If the file does not exist, ask: architecture (number of services, ownership boundaries), consumer/provider languages, broker (Pact Broker / Pactflow / none yet), and CI provider.
What contract testing is — and isn't
Is: an agreement between a consumer (e.g., a mobile app) and a provider (e.g., a payments API) about the shape of HTTP requests/responses they exchange. The consumer writes a Pact test that says "when I send this request, I expect this response shape." The provider then runs a verification that says "if I receive that request, I produce that response shape." The agreement (the pact file) is the contract.
Isn't:
- Not load testing.
- Not functional testing — pacts test shape, not business logic.
- Not a replacement for E2E — there are integration concerns pacts can't catch.
- Not auto-generated documentation, although it doubles as one.
- Not useful for system boundaries where you don't control both sides (e.g., a third-party API you can't ask to verify).
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 215 lines · 132 tokens per session scan A 63c73f5ca5a1
pact-contract-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository aks-builds/quality-skills (2 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 132 tokens to every session and 2,320 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-case-writer
Use when someone asks to generate test cases, write test cases from a user story, create test cases from a BRD, design test cases from a mockup or wireframe, or produce a test case table from requirements.
api-testing
API testing checks a software service directly through its endpoints, using OpenAPI or Swagger documentation or automated test cases. It can produce and run scripts that test requests and responses.
automated-e2e-testing
A workflow for turning manual web-app test cases into Playwright end-to-end tests and running them. End-to-end tests check a complete user flow through the website.
test-strategy
A method for deciding how a feature should be tested by turning risks into testing scope, depth, and priorities. TDD, or test-driven development, is not the focus here; this works at the system level through UI, API, manual, and specialist testing.
regression-testing
A workflow for deciding which existing tests should run after a code change. Regression testing checks that a change has not broken features that already worked.
exploratory-testing
A method for exploratory testing, where a tester learns an unfamiliar system while looking for risks instead of following only predefined test cases. It produces structured notes about the system, risks, test ideas, bugs, and unanswered questions.