Playbook for implementing consumer-driven contract tests (Pact) between backend services so API contract breaks surface in CI before they reach integration environments.
Scanned 9/23/2026
npx -y skills add mcorbett51090/RavenClaude --skill api-contract-testing --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Api Contract Testing?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mcorbett51090-api-contract-testing)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: api-contract-testing
description: "Playbook for implementing consumer-driven contract tests (Pact) between backend services so API contract breaks surface in CI before they reach integration environments."
---
# API Contract Testing
## When to invoke
Use when two or more services communicate over HTTP/messaging and you want to catch contract breaks (missing fields, changed types, removed endpoints) in the individual service's CI pipeline rather than in a shared integration environment.
## Concepts in 30 seconds
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Consumer | The service that calls the API |
| Provider | The service that serves the API |
| Pact | A JSON file of recorded interactions the consumer depends on |
| Pact Broker | Central registry that matches consumers to providers |
| Verification | Provider re-runs each pact interaction against its real code |
## Step 1 — Consumer writes the pact
In the consumer's test suite (using the Pact SDK for your language):
```python
# Python example (pact-python)
pact = Consumer("order-service").has_pact_with(Provider("inventory-service"))
(pact
.given("item SKU-99 exists in inventory")
.upon_receiving("a stock-check request")
.with_request(method="GET", path="/inventory/SKU-99")
.will_respond_with(
status=200,
body={"sku": "SKU-99", "quantity": Like(10)}, # Like = type-only match
))
```
Key matchers:
- `Like(value)` — type only (any integer, not exactly 10)
- `EachLike(template)` — non-empty array of matching elements
- `Term(regex, example)` — value matches regex
Commit the generated `pact.json` to the Pact Broker in the consumer CI job.
## Step 2 — Provider verifies
In the provider's test suite, replay every known pact against the real application (started in-process or via Docker):
```python
# provider verification (pytest-pact)
@pytest.fixture
def provider_opts():
return {
"provider": "inventory-service",
"pact_broker_url": os.environ["PACT_BROKER_URL"],
"publish_verification_results": True,
"provider_version": os.environ["GIT_SHA"],
}
```
The provider CI job fetches all consumer pacts, runs each interaction, and publishes a pass/fail result. **A failed verification blocks the provider's deploy.**
## Step 3 — Can-I-Deploy gate
Before any deploy, query the Broker:
```bash
pact-broker can-i-deploy \
--pacticipant inventory-service \
--version $GIT_SHA \
--to-environment production
```
Returns exit 0 only if every consumer whose pact is marked "required for production" has a passing verification against this provider version. Wire this as a required CI step before the deploy job.
## Step 4 — Provider states (test data setup)
Provider state handlers set up the preconditions described in `given(...)`:
```python
@provider_state("item SKU-99 exists in inventory")
def setup_sku99():
db.seed(sku="SKU-99", quantity=10)
@provider_state("item SKU-99 is out of stock")
def setup_sku99_oos():
db.seed(sku="SKU-99", quantity=0)
```
Keep states minimal — only what the consumer interaction needs, not a full fixture set.
## Decision: Pact vs schema sharing vs integration tests
| Approach | Catches contract break in | Team coupling |
|---|---|---|
| Pact (consumer-driven) | Each service's CI | Consumer drives the spec |
| Shared OpenAPI schema | PR lint | Both teams must coordinate |
| Integration environment | Shared test run | Slowest, most flaky |
Use Pact when teams deploy independently. Use schema sharing as a complement (not a replacement) — the schema documents intent; the pact proves the consumer's actual usage.
## Pitfalls
- **Over-specifying the pact body** — using exact-match on every field means any additive change by the provider fails the pact, even though the consumer doesn't care. Use `Like` and `EachLike` for fields the consumer doesn't depend on.
- **Skipping provider states** — without state setup, the provider can't reproduce the scenario and the test is meaningless noise.
- **Not publishing verification results** — the can-i-deploy gate only works when results are in the Broker; a provider that verifies locally but doesn't publish blocks nothing.
- **One monolith pact** — a single pact for an entire consumer tests too much; split by interaction group so a single-field change shows exactly what broke.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!