Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use when you need framework-agnostic WireMock guidance — stub design, JSON or programmatic mappings, precise request matching, response bodies and faults, classpath fixtures, isolation and reset between tests, verification of calls, dynamic ports and base URLs, and avoiding flaky stubs — without choosing Spring Boot, Quarkus, or Micronaut. This should trigger for requests such as Design or review WireMock stubs (JSON mappings or Java DSL); Improve request matching, isolation, or reset strategy f
.claude/skills/jabrena-702-technologies-wiremock/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -14% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -8% | 0% |
| case-21 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 57% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✓→✓ | ＝ Same ✓ | -14% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✓→✓ | ＝ Same ✓ | 15% | 0% |
Help teams use WireMock effectively for HTTP dependency stubbing with stable, isolated tests.
What is covered in this Skill?
resetAll(), avoiding leaked global stubsbodyFileName / classpath fixtures, fault simulation (delays, errors)Scope: Portable WireMock behavior only. For BaseIntegrationTest, WireMockExtension, and stack-specific integration tests, use @132-java-testing-integration-testing, @322-frameworks-spring-boot-testing-integration-tests, @422-frameworks-quarkus-testing-integration-tests, or @522-frameworks-micronaut-testing-integration-tests. For OpenAPI contract quality, use @701-technologies-openapi.
Keep recommendations at the WireMock and HTTP-stub layer unless the user explicitly asks for framework integration. After editing this repository's XML sources, regenerate skills and verify the build.
./mvnw compile or mvn compile before proposing Java or Maven changes in the same change set@SpringBootTest / @QuarkusTest / @MicronautTest and extension setup to @132-java-testing-integration-testing or the matching 322 / 422 / 522 integration-test skill@701-technologies-openapi./mvnw clean verify or mvn clean verify before promoting changesRead references/702-technologies-wiremock.md and inspect current API/context artifacts before proposing changes.
Identify requested outcomes, constraints, and the minimum safe set of changes to apply.
Implement or refactor artifacts following the reference patterns and project conventions.
Execute appropriate checks and summarize what changed, what was verified, and any follow-up actions.
For detailed guidance, examples, and constraints, see references/702-technologies-wiremock.md.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 17,091 | 7,473 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,043 | 1,047 | -66% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 19,073 | 10,195 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,269 | 2,813 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 19,880 | 8,094 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,510 | 2,058 | -41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 16,702 | 15,870 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,954 | 2,885 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 11,244 | 5,332 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,866 | 1,597 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 11,124 | 8,636 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,847 | 2,125 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 14,176 | 7,736 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,309 | 1,994 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 13,938 | 8,435 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,347 | 2,115 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 11,775 | 8,537 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,923 | 2,146 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 10,052 | 3,745 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,407 | 1,294 | -8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 6,857 | 2,398 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,108 | 1,161 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 4,710 | 3,087 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 731 | 1,218 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 8,076 | 3,439 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,352 | 1,290 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 14,236 | 13,058 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,245 | 2,870 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 10,031 | 4,389 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,665 | 1,587 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 12,595 | 5,446 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,975 | 1,648 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 12,047 | 11,171 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,861 | 2,524 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 11,210 | 7,806 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,072 | 2,108 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 9,282 | 8,984 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,768 | 2,538 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 11,385 | 5,869 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,867 | 1,788 | -4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 5,767 | 3,695 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 849 | 1,337 | +57% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 12,964 | 7,873 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,254 | 2,135 | -5% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 21 counted toward the lift figure. The other 1 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +14 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 21 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.