agentleFS
jpicklykjpicklyk/task-orchestrator/.claude/skills/api-compat-review/SKILL.md

api-compat-review

Skill214 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub

Compatibility assessment for items with the needs-api-compat-review trait. Evaluates the tool surface (served over both MCP and REST ops) and the REST-only surface separately, since their compatibility models differ. Invoked via skillPointer when filling api-compatibility notes.

The file

Files
SKILL.md

API Compatibility Review Framework

Assess API changes by surface. There is ONE tool surface, served over MCP and over REST POST /api/v1/ops/{tool} (the same ToolDispatcher, see api-rest.md 20a). MCP clients re-discover the schema every session, but REST ops callers hardcode tool, field and select names. A REST-only surface (routes, DTOs, openapi) has its own hardcoded clients. Do not treat a tool change as rename-friendly just because MCP clients re-read the schema.

Step 1: Classify the Change

Determine which surface(s) the change touches:

  • Tool surface (MCP and REST ops) - request-class @Doc fields (under application/api/<area>/, in application/report/ReportRequests.kt, or in the items_*/config op file), the ToolSpecs registered in buildToolSpecs() (interfaces/shared/tools/ToolRegistry.kt), the goldens under current/src/test/resources/golden/tools/, the generated blocks of api-reference.md, and call-shapes.md
  • REST-only surface - interfaces/api/v1/routes/, interfaces/api/v1/dto/Dtos.kt, current/docs/api/openapi.yaml, SSE and leases

A single change (e.g., a domain model field rename) can touch both surfaces independently — assess each.

Step 2: Tool Surface Assessment

MCP clients re-read the tools/list schema every session, but the same tools are reachable over REST POST /api/v1/ops/{tool} by callers that hardcode names. Only description and doc prose is rename-cheap. A field rename or removal, or a response-shape change, breaks hardcoded REST ops callers. The item GETs (interfaces/api/v1/routes/ItemRoutes.kt, NoteResourceRoutes.kt) dispatch items_read and notes_read, so a select's output change reaches them too. Verify:

  • Every changed field's request-class @Doc and its decode site stay in sync - no schema-says-X/code-reads-Y drift
  • Response-shape changes are additive where possible; a rename or removal has a migration path for REST ops callers
  • ALL first-party callers update in lockstep: plugin skills, hooks (including the orchestration-context hook's injected text), auto-memory references, and the generated artifacts: ./gradlew :current:regenerateToolGoldens, ./gradlew :current:regenerateApiReference, node claude-plugins/task-orchestrator/scripts/gen-call-shapes.mjs, the to-call blocks and tool-catalog.json
  • The tool description and doc prose accurately reflect the new behavior

Step 3: REST-Only Surface Assessment

Routes, DTOs, openapi, SSE and leases. HTTP clients hardcode field and param names, so compatibility matters here too:

  • Response-shape changes are additive (new fields only) where possible
  • Renames or removals of existing fields/params have an explicit migration path or version bump — not a silent break
  • Note when a surface has effectively zero consumers (e.g., a days-old endpoint) so the reviewer can right-size caution instead of over-indexing on hypothetical clients
  • current/docs/api/openapi.yaml is updated for any REST-facing change, including the /ops/{tool} body
  • api-rest.md is updated for any REST-facing change

Output

Compose the api-compatibility note with findings from Step 2 and/or Step 3, scoped to whichever surface(s) the change actually touches. If a surface wasn't touched, say so explicitly rather than omitting it silently.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

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.