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 agentmods add skills/an8079/take-skills/api-contract-testingnpx skills add an8079/take-skills --skill api-contract-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/an8079/take-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/an8079/take-skills/api-contract-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/an8079/take-skills/api-contract-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/an8079/take-skills/api-contract-testing.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00077 | $0.03020 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01510 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00604 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00302 |
Grade A, and why
api-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 4d 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 — 448 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
API Contract Testing — Verify Interfaces, Ship Faster
The Problem Contract Testing Solves
Traditional: Consumer ←→ Provider (full integration required)
↑___________full stack deployment needed___________↑
~40 min CI, all teams blocked
Contract: Consumer ←→ Contract ←→ Provider
↑___________mock + contract________↑
~3 min CI, teams unblocked
Contract testing proves that two services can communicate without deploying both or running a full integration environment.
Two Types of Contract Tests
Consumer-Driven Contract (CDC)
Consumer writes: "I expect Provider to respond with {status: 200, body: {id: string}}"
Consumer validates against a MOCK that implements this contract
Consumer publishes contract to a broker (PactFlow, Pact Broker)
Provider pulls contract and verifies: "I can satisfy this contract"
Provider-Side Contract
Provider defines: OpenAPI spec (Swagger/YAML) or GraphQL schema or Proto files
Consumer validates: Generated client code + runtime responses match schema
Tools: Dredd, OpenAPI Validator, Spectral
Tool Landscape
| Type | Tool | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| CDC (HTTP/JSON) | Pact | REST microservices, consumer teams |
| CDC (Broker) | PactFlow | Enterprise, shared contracts, versioning |
| Provider (OpenAPI) | Dredd | Validating API against Swagger/OpenAPI spec |
| Provider (OpenAPI) | Spectral | Linting + validating YAML/JSON against rulesets |
| GraphQL | GraphQL Inspector | Schema diffs, breaking change detection |
| GraphQL | Envelop | Runtime schema validation |
| Proto/GRPC | grpcurl + buf | Protobuf contract testing |
| E2E contract | Postman/Newman | Full HTTP contract suites |
| Multi-format | RestAssured (JVM) | Java REST API testing |
Pact (Consumer + Provider)
Consumer Test
# tests/consumer/test_order_client.py
import pytest
from pact import Consumer, Provider, Like, Term
@pytest.fixture
def pact():
consumer = Consumer('OrderFrontend')
provider = Provider('OrderService')
return consumer
def test_create_order_returns_201(pact):
"""Consumer: I expect creating an order returns 201 with an order ID."""
(
pact.given('a valid cart with items')
.upon_receiving('a request to create an order')
.with_request(
method='POST',
path='/api/v1/orders',
headers={'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'Authorization': 'Bearer valid_token'},
body={
'cart_id': 'cart-abc-123',
'items': [
{'sku': 'WIDGET-001', 'quantity': 2},
{'sku': 'GADGET-002', 'quantity': 1},
],
'shipping_address': {
'street': Like('123 Main St'),
'city': Term('[A-Za-z\\s]+'),
'postal_code': Like('10001'),
}
},
)
.will_respond_with(
status=201,
headers={'Content-Type': 'application/json'},
body={
'order_id': Like('ord-xxxxxxxx-xxxx'),
'status': 'confirmed',
'total': 149.99,
'created_at': Term('\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}T\\d{2}:\\d{2}:\\d{2}Z'),
'items': [
{'sku': 'WIDGET-001', 'quantity': 2, 'price': 49.99},
{'sku': 'GADGET-002', 'quantity': 1, 'price': 50.00},
],
},
)
)
with pact:
result = order_client.create_order(
cart_id='cart-abc-123',
items=[{'sku': 'WIDGET-001', 'qty': 2}, {'sku': 'GADGET-002', 'qty': 1}],
token='valid_token',
)
assert result['status'] == 'confirmed'
assert 'order_id' in result
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 448 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 7b4db252846d
api-contract-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository an8079/take-skills (4 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 3,020 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…