agentleFS
roronoazoroshao369roronoazoroshao369/vibe-coding-os/skills/checklists/api-endpoint-quality/SKILL.md

api-endpoint-quality

Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Validate the quality of any REST or GraphQL endpoint change before merge. This checklist ensures endpoints are secure, reliable, backwards-compatible, well-tested, and follow consistent conventions. It treats the endpoint contract as a specification and runs explicit quality checks against it. Use whenever a pull request or commit modifies an API endpoint — whether adding a new route, changing an existing one, adjusting request/response shapes, altering auth behavior, or updating GraphQL resolvers. Compose with skills/core/acceptance-criteria/SKILL.md and skills/core/test-driven-development/SKILL.md. Every checklist item asks…

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use whenever a pull request or commit modifies an API endpoint — whether adding a new route, changing an existing one, adjusting …

    line 21
  2. Distinctive:

    Every checklist item asks whether the endpoint *contract* holds — method, path, request shape, response shape, error behaviour, auth, …

    line 33
  3. Very specific:

    Run each checklist item as a question about the endpoint contract.

    line 54
  4. Distinctive:

    Not documenting the pagination contract for listing endpoints.

    line 69

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

API Endpoint Quality Checklist

Purpose

Validate the quality of any REST or GraphQL endpoint change before merge. This checklist ensures endpoints are secure, reliable, backwards-compatible, well-tested, and follow consistent conventions. It treats the endpoint contract as a specification and runs explicit quality checks against it.

When to use

Use whenever a pull request or commit modifies an API endpoint — whether adding a new route, changing an existing one, adjusting request/response shapes, altering auth behavior, or updating GraphQL resolvers. Compose with skills/core/acceptance-criteria/SKILL.md and skills/core/test-driven-development/SKILL.md.

Inputs

  • API design doc or spec (OpenAPI, GraphQL schema, or inline documentation)
  • The diff for the endpoint change
  • Known consumers (mobile, web, third-party SDKs)
  • Rate-limit and auth configuration context
  • Current test suite and coverage

Core principle: verify the contract, not just the code

Every checklist item asks whether the endpoint contract holds — method, path, request shape, response shape, error behaviour, auth, idempotency, pagination, and backwards compatibility. The implementation code is secondary; the observable behaviour is primary.

Quality dimensions

Group checklist items by these dimensions:

  • HTTP Method / Path — is the verb and URL correct and RESTful?
  • Request Validation — are inputs validated with clear error messages?
  • Error Responses — are all error cases documented and consistent?
  • Auth / Authorization — are auth checks applied at the right level?
  • Rate Limiting — are limits documented and enforced for the endpoint?
  • Idempotency — do mutating endpoints handle retries safely?
  • Response Format Consistency — is the body shape predictable and versioned?
  • Pagination Shape — do listing endpoints follow a standard pagination contract?
  • Backwards Compatibility — does the change break existing clients?
  • Test Coverage — do tests cover status codes, error cases, and edge parameters?

Workflow

  1. Confirm intent. Ask clarifying questions about which endpoints changed, what the expected contract is, and whether any consumers need advance notice (deprecation window).
  2. Load the relevant API spec or documentation for the changed endpoint(s).
  3. Run each checklist item as a question about the endpoint contract. Tag findings with a dimension and a traceability marker (spec section reference, file/line, or [Missing] / [Inconsistent] / [Breaking] / [Assumption]).
  4. Group findings under the quality dimension headings above.
  5. Merge near-duplicates.
  6. Output the checklist with pass/fail status per item.
  7. Record resolved findings back into the spec or diff.

Outputs

A completed API endpoint quality checklist with item-level pass/fail, a summary of findings, and any remediation steps required before merge.

Failure modes

  • Testing only the happy path while ignoring error and edge cases.
  • Assuming backwards compatibility without checking actual consumer usage.
  • Skipping rate-limit and auth checks because "the middleware handles it".
  • Not documenting the pagination contract for listing endpoints.
  • Overlooking idempotency for non-GET mutations.
  • Writing tests that only cover status codes without validating response bodies.

Verification checklist

  • HTTP method and path are clearly documented and follow project conventions.
  • Request body and query parameters are validated against a schema.
  • Every error case has a documented HTTP status code and consistent error body shape.
  • Auth/authorization requirements are documented and enforced at the endpoint level.
  • Rate limits (global and per-endpoint) are documented and enforced.
  • Mutating endpoints (POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE) are idempotent or include idempotency keys.
  • Response body format is consistent (envelope, error shape, field naming convention).
  • Listing endpoints define page size, cursor/offset, total count, and next-page link.
  • Backwards compatibility is assessed: no breaking changes without a documented deprecation window.
  • Tests cover: happy-path status codes, each documented error case, edge parameters (empty lists, maximum page size, boundary values).

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.