contract-testing
Skill515 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub
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.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 24
When testing API contracts or microservices:
- Distinctive: line 26
VERIFY provider fulfills contracts (Pact verification)
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Contract Testing
<default_to_action> When testing API contracts or microservices:
- DEFINE consumer expectations (what consumers actually need)
- VERIFY provider fulfills contracts (Pact verification)
- DETECT breaking changes before deployment (CI/CD integration)
- VERSION APIs semantically (breaking = major bump)
- MAINTAIN backward compatibility for supported versions
Quick Contract Testing Steps:
- Consumer: Define expected request/response pairs
- Provider: Verify against all consumer contracts
- CI/CD: Block deploys that break contracts
- Versioning: Document supported versions and deprecation
Critical Success Factors:
- Consumers own the contract (they define what they need)
- Provider must pass all consumer contracts before deploy
- Breaking changes require coordination, not surprise </default_to_action>
Quick Reference Card
When to Use
- Microservices communication
- Third-party API integrations
- Distributed team coordination
- Preventing breaking changes
Consumer-Driven Contract Flow
Consumer → Defines Expectations → Contract
↓
Provider → Verifies Contract → Pass/Fail
↓
CI/CD → Blocks Breaking ChangesBreaking vs Non-Breaking Changes
| Change Type | Breaking? | Semver |
| Remove field | ✅ Yes | Major |
| Rename field | ✅ Yes | Major |
| Change type | ✅ Yes | Major |
| Add optional field | ❌ No | Minor |
| Add new endpoint | ❌ No | Minor |
| Bug fix | ❌ No | Patch |
Tools
| Tool | Best For |
| Pact | Consumer-driven contracts |
| OpenAPI/Swagger | API-first design |
| JSON Schema | Schema validation |
| GraphQL | Schema-first contracts |
Consumer Contract (Pact)
// Consumer defines what it needs
const { Pact } = require('@pact-foundation/pact');
describe('Order API Consumer', () => {
const provider = new Pact({
consumer: 'CheckoutUI',
provider: 'OrderService'
});
beforeAll(() => provider.setup());
afterAll(() => provider.finalize());
it('creates an order', async () => {
await provider.addInteraction({
state: 'products exist',
uponReceiving: 'a create order request',
withRequest: {
method: 'POST',
path: '/orders',
body: { productId: 'abc', quantity: 2 }
},
willRespondWith: {
status: 201,
body: {
orderId: like('order-123'), // Any string matching pattern
total: like(19.99) // Any number
}
}
});
const response = await orderClient.create({ productId: 'abc', quantity: 2 });
expect(response.orderId).toBeDefined();
});
});Provider Verification
// Provider verifies it fulfills all consumer contracts
const { Verifier } = require('@pact-foundation/pact');
describe('Order Service Provider', () => {
it('fulfills all consumer contracts', async () => {
await new Verifier({
provider: 'OrderService',
providerBaseUrl: 'http://localhost:3000',
pactUrls: ['./pacts/checkoutui-orderservice.json'],
stateHandlers: {
'products exist': async () => {
await db.products.create({ id: 'abc', price: 9.99 });
}
}
}).verifyProvider();
});
});Breaking Change Detection
// Agent detects breaking changes
await Task("Contract Validation", {
currentContract: 'openapi-v2.yaml',
previousContract: 'openapi-v1.yaml',
detectBreaking: true,
calculateSemver: true,
generateMigrationGuide: true
}, "qe-api-contract-validator");
// Output:
// Breaking changes found: 2
// - Removed field: order.discount
// - Type change: order.total (number → string)
// Recommended version: 3.0.0 (major bump)CI/CD Integration
name: Contract Tests
on: [push]
jobs:
consumer-tests:
steps:
- run: npm run test:contract
- name: Publish Pacts
run: npx pact-broker publish ./pacts --broker-base-url $PACT_BROKER
provider-verification:
needs: consumer-tests
steps:
- name: Verify Provider
run: npm run verify:contracts
- name: Can I Deploy?
run: npx pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant OrderService --version $VERSIONAgent Coordination Hints
Memory Namespace
aqe/contract-testing/
├── contracts/* - Current contracts
├── breaking-changes/* - Detected breaking changes
├── versioning/* - Version compatibility matrix
└── verification-results/* - Provider verification historyFleet Coordination
const contractFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
strategy: 'contract-testing',
agents: [
'qe-api-contract-validator', // Validation, breaking detection
'qe-test-generator', // Generate contract tests
'qe-security-scanner' // API security
],
topology: 'sequential'
});Agent CLI & Advanced Patterns
For v3 agent-specific commands (aqe contract ...), GraphQL contracts, event contracts, and Pact Broker integration, see references/agent-commands.md.
Related Skills
- api-testing-patterns - API testing strategies
- shift-left-testing - Early contract validation
- cicd-pipeline-qe-orchestrator - Pipeline integration
Remember
Consumers own the contract. They define what they need; providers must fulfill it. Breaking changes require major version bumps and coordination. CI/CD blocks deploys that break contracts. Use Pact for consumer-driven, OpenAPI for API-first.
With Agents: Agents validate contracts, detect breaking changes with semver recommendations, and generate migration guides. Use agents to maintain contract compliance at scale.
Gotchas
- Pact broker URL must be configured before running — agent will generate tests that silently skip verification without it
- Consumer tests pass locally but fail in CI when provider states aren't set up — always verify both sides
- Adding a required field to a response is a BREAKING change even though provider tests pass — consumer didn't expect it
- Agent may generate contracts from API docs instead of actual consumer usage — contracts must reflect real consumer needs
- GraphQL contract testing requires schema stitching awareness — fragments may reference types from other services
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 9
- petrkindlmann/qa-skills★ 209same name
- Indium-AI-Labs/indium-agentkit★ 18same name
- Ionate-Technologies/indium-agentkit★ 17same name
- saitarrun/Devforge-ai★ 4same name
- sb-dev/narrative-production-skills★ 2same name
- mejbaurbahar/fagun★ 1same name
- mejbaurbahar/software-tester-skills★ 1same name
- Abdox-menara/guard-skills★ 0same name
- vindreshsingh/engineering-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use threat-modeling, api-design and 2 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
msewellSkillthreat-modeling
Produces structured threat models for software systems using STRIDE on data flow diagrams. Generates DFDs with trust boundaries, identifies threats per element, scores risks, and defines concrete mitigations. Outputs a complete threat model Markdown document through phased, interactive delivery. Use when threat modeling a system, analyzing security threats, identifying attack surfaces, performing STRIDE analysis, assessing security risks in architecture, creating a threat model document, or when the user mentions threat model, attack surface, trust boundaries, STRIDE, or security risk analysis.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillapi-design
Guide for designing and documenting RESTful APIs. Use when asked to design an API, create endpoints, or document an API.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillrelease-notes
Author and update release notes for Azure App Configuration libraries and providers. USE FOR: write release notes, add release note entry, update release notes, draft release notes, new version release notes, format release notes. DO NOT USE FOR: generating changelogs from git history, writing internal engineering notes.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillsecurity-review
Finds exploitable application security vulnerabilities in code changes. Use for Warden security scans, appsec review, OWASP-style checks, authentication or authorization bugs, injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, secrets, unsafe crypto, webhook verification, open redirects, or sensitive data exposure.
Also in 3 projects that use this
In this repository129 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/commands/monitoring/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- aqe-plan-qualitySkill
- aqe-plan-workSkill
- aqe-researchSkill
- aqe-review-qualitySkill
- aqe-rufloSkill
- aqe-test-changeSkill
- rufloSkill
- a11y-allySkill
- accessibility-testingSkill
- AgentDB Advanced FeaturesSkill
- AgentDB Learning PluginsSkill
- AgentDB Memory PatternsSkill
- AgentDB Performance OptimizationSkill
- AgentDB Vector SearchSkill
- agentic-quality-engineeringSkill
- api-testing-patternsSkill
- browserSkill
- brutal-honesty-reviewSkill
- bug-reporting-excellenceSkill
- chaos-engineering-resilienceSkill
- cicd-pipeline-qe-orchestratorSkill
- code-review-qualitySkill
- compatibility-testingSkill
- compliance-testingSkill
- consultancy-practicesSkill
- context-driven-testingSkill
- coverage-drop-investigatorSkill
- coverage-guardSkill
- database-testingSkill
- debug-loopSkill
- e2e-flow-verifierSkill
- enterprise-integration-testingSkill
- exploratory-testing-advancedSkill
- flow-nexus-neuralSkill
- flow-nexus-platformSkill
- flow-nexus-swarmSkill
- freeze-testsSkill
- github-code-reviewSkill
- github-multi-repoSkill
- github-project-managementSkill
- github-release-managementSkill
- github-workflow-automationSkill
- holistic-testing-pactSkill
- Hooks AutomationSkill
- iterative-loopSkill
- localization-testingSkill
- middleware-testing-patternsSkill
- mobile-testingSkill
- mutation-testingSkill
- n8n-expression-testingSkill
- n8n-integration-testing-patternsSkill
- n8n-security-testingSkill
- n8n-trigger-testing-strategiesSkill
- n8n-workflow-testing-fundamentalsSkill
- no-skipSkill
- observability-testing-patternsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

