diff --git a/rules/S8345/java/metadata.json b/rules/S8345/java/metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..d3a4e0bc6a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rules/S8345/java/metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+{
+  "title": "FIXME",
+  "type": "CODE_SMELL",
+  "status": "ready",
+  "remediation": {
+    "func": "Constant\/Issue",
+    "constantCost": "5min"
+  },
+  "tags": [
+  ],
+  "defaultSeverity": "Major",
+  "ruleSpecification": "RSPEC-8345",
+  "sqKey": "S8345",
+  "scope": "All",
+  "defaultQualityProfiles": ["Sonar way"],
+  "quickfix": "unknown",
+  "code": {
+    "impacts": {
+      "MAINTAINABILITY": "HIGH",
+      "RELIABILITY": "MEDIUM",
+      "SECURITY": "LOW"
+    },
+    "attribute": "CONVENTIONAL"
+  }
+}
diff --git a/rules/S8345/java/rule.adoc b/rules/S8345/java/rule.adoc
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..181fdf1f5e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rules/S8345/java/rule.adoc
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+This rule raises an issue when a test annotated with the `@ParameterizedTest`
+annotation does not take the parameterized argument(s) as a method parameter(s).
+
+== Why is this an issue?
+
+Methods annotated with JUnit's `@ParameterizedTest` annotation are designed to run
+multiple times with different arguments provided with annotations, such as,
+`@ValueSource`, `@CsvSource`, and `@MethodSource`. This rule raises an issue when
+a method is marked with such annotation but the provided parameterized parameters are not used (either
+when there is no corresponding method parameter, or when the method parameter is not used in the
+test body) or if the number of method parameters doesn't match the parameterized parameters given.
+This rule highlights this discrepancy, encouraging developers to either use the
+provided parameters or remove the unnecessary annotations.
+
+
+=== What is the potential impact?
+This can lead to the developer believing the test is being run
+with multiple values, when in fact it's executed multiple times with the same behavior.
+
+=== How to fix it
+To fix the issue, use the parameterized parameters or remove them.
+
+=== Code examples
+
+==== Noncompliant code example
+
+[source,java,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
+----
+@ParameterizedTest
+@ValueSource(strings = {"a", "b", "c"})
+void test() { // Noncompliant
+    // The values "a", "b", "c" are not used here.
+    // The test will run, but the parameterization is pointless.
+}
+
+@ParameterizedTest
+@ValueSource(strings = {"a", "b", "c"})
+void test(String value) { // Noncompliant
+    // value is not used
+}
+
+@ParameterizedTest
+@ValueSource(strings = {"a", "b", "c"})
+void test(String key, String value ) { // Noncompliant
+}
+----
+==== Compliant solution
+
+[source,java,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
+----
+@ParameterizedTest
+@ValueSource(strings = {"a", "b", "c"})
+void test(String value) { // Compliant
+  // use `value`
+}
+----
+
+=== Message
+Method argument should match parametrized parameters
+
+=== Pitfalls
+In the case the number of arguments is determined by the value of the annotations
+(`@CsvSource`, `@CsvFileSource`, `@MethodSource`, `@FieldSource`, `@ArgumentSource`) and not the annotations itself,
+the analysis matching the number of method arguments is not performed.
+
+=== Documentation
+https://docs.junit.org/current/user-guide/#writing-tests-parameterized-tests[Parameterized Test Documentation]
+
diff --git a/rules/S8345/metadata.json b/rules/S8345/metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..2c63c085104
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rules/S8345/metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+{
+}