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 j4flmao/agent-skills --skill contract-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/j4flmao/agent-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/j4flmao/agent-skills/contract-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/j4flmao/agent-skills/contract-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/j4flmao/agent-skills/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/j4flmao/agent-skills/contract-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/j4flmao/agent-skills/contract-testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 6 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 96 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 258 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 264 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 283 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 286 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 306 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00100 | $0.04324 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.01730 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00865 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00432 |
Grade A, and why
backend-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 1mo 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 — 541 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Backend Contract Testing
Purpose
Use consumer-driven contract (CDC) testing with Pact to verify that provider services satisfy consumer expectations, replacing brittle end-to-end integration tests with fast, deterministic contract tests.
Agent Protocol
Trigger
Exact user phrases: "contract testing", "Pact", "consumer-driven contracts", "CDC", "provider verification", "pact test", "pactflow", "contract test", "consumer test", "provider test".
Input Context
- Service architecture: list of consumers and providers.
- Existing test framework (Jest, JUnit, pytest, etc.).
- Pact broker or PactFlow URL if available.
Output Artifact
Pact test code snippets or Pactfile. No file unless requested.
Response Format
Consumer: {service}
Provider: {service}
Interactions: {N}
State: {provider state}
Completion Criteria
- Consumer test written for each consumer-provider interaction.
- Provider verification test written for each provider.
- Pact files published to Pact broker.
- Provider verification runs in CI against the deployed provider.
- No hardcoded URLs or real data in Pact tests.
Max Response Length
6 lines per interaction. 20 lines for full test.
Architecture Decision Tree
Should I Use Contract Testing?
Do consumer and provider belong to different teams?
├── Yes → Strongly consider contract testing
└── No → Is the provider used by multiple consumers?
├── Yes → Contract testing recommended
└── No → Would an E2E test be too slow/brittle?
├── Yes → Contract testing may help
└── No → Simple unit/integration tests may suffice
Which Approach?
Can the consumer change the contract independently?
├── Yes → Consumer-Driven Contract (CDC) with Pact
└── No → Is the provider owned by the same team as the consumer?
├── Yes → Bi-Directional Contracts (Spring Cloud Contract or Pact)
└── No → Provider-Driven Contracts (OpenAPI + Specmatic)
What ships with it
8 files 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.
- references/cdc-workflow.md 4.7 KB
- references/contract-testing-advanced.md 8.2 KB
- references/contract-testing-ci.md 7.4 KB
- references/contract-testing-fundamentals.md 4.7 KB
- references/contract-testing-tools.md 5.2 KB
- references/contract-testing-workflow.md 7.1 KB
- references/pact-setup.md 4.2 KB
- references/provider-verification-deep.md 6.2 KB
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 541 lines · 100 tokens per session scan A 271bf7bfb89d
backend-contract-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository j4flmao/agent-skills (34 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 100 tokens to every session and 4,324 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
api-testing-patterns
Comprehensive API testing patterns including contract testing, REST/GraphQL testing, and integration testing. Use when testing APIs or designing API test strategies.
Contract Test Generator
Generate consumer-driven contract tests using Pact framework to verify API provider-consumer compatibility and prevent integration breaking changes.
Contract Testing with Pact
Consumer-driven contract testing skill using Pact, covering consumer tests, provider verification, Pact Broker integration, and CI/CD workflows.
api-testing-patterns
Comprehensive API testing patterns including contract testing, REST/GraphQL testing, and integration testing. Use when testing APIs or designing API test strategies.
contract-testing
Consumer-driven contract testing for microservices using Pact, schema validation, API versioning, and backward compatibility testing. Use when testing API contracts or coordinating distributed teams.
API Contract Validator
Validate API responses against OpenAPI/Swagger specifications, JSON Schema definitions, and consumer-driven contracts to prevent breaking changes.