AB api-contract-review
Review an API's contract as a promise to consumers — detects breaking changes by diffing the before/after surface (removed/renamed fields, type changes, tightened requiredness, status-code changes), and judges design by the repo's OWN precedent (error envelope, naming, pagination, auth placement) with every consistency finding citing the in-repo convention being violated. Covers versioning, idempotency on retryable writes, pagination on collections, and status-code semantics. Use this skill whenever the user says "review this API", "review the endpoint", "API design review", "is this a breaking change", "check backward compatibility", "review the contract", "review this OpenAPI/swagger spec", or "/api-contract-review" — even if they don't name the skill. Distinct from code-review (implementation quality); this reviews the SURFACE consumers depend on.
Review an API's contract as a promise to consumers — detects breaking changes by diffing the before/after surface (removed/renamed fields, type changes…
As a process B 69/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, progress reporting
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 69/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 31 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2108 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 862: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 8 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
- +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.