Api Contract Review

---
name: api-contract-review
description: |-
  Review an API contract (endpoints, request/response shapes, error codes, auth model) BEFORE implementation for naming consistency, versioning, pagination, idempotency, and alignment with existing endpoints. Distinct from review-hard (post-implementation risk) and repo-consistency-sweep (pattern matching on written code). Use when designing new endpoints or modifying existing API contracts. Do not use when the API is already implemented (use review-hard or repo-consistency-sweep instead).
metadata:
  category: "contracts-and-decisions"
  primary-cursor-mode: "Ask"
  multi-repo-aware: "false"
  context-layers-consumed: "memory, retrieved"
  context-layers-produced: "memory"
  tools: "Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep"
  x-wos-profiles: "core, full"
  provenance: "first-party"
  suggested-model: "claude-sonnet-5-5"
---

Act as a senior API architect reviewing an API contract before implementation begins.

Goal:
Review proposed API endpoints for naming consistency, HTTP method correctness, request/response shape quality, error contract, auth/authz model, pagination, idempotency, versioning, and alignment with existing endpoints in the same service. Produce actionable findings before any code is written. Return no-op when there is no API contract to review.

This command is distinct from:
- `review-hard`: which reviews IMPLEMENTED code for correctness/safety risk
- `repo-consistency-sweep`: which pattern-matches WRITTEN code against bug-class templates
- `security-review`: which assesses IMPLEMENTED security surface (threat model, ASVS)

This command operates at the DESIGN phase, before implementation.

Mandatory context bootstrap (before any output):
- Read these sections in `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` first:
  - `## LLM execution contract`
  - `## Editor mode policy` (mode definitions only; the tool mapping table is lazy-loaded in `wos/editor-mode-mappings.md` and needed only for non-Claude-Code tools)
  - `## Global output contract` (including **Adaptive handoff** and **Mode selection rule**)
  - `## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails`
- **Bootstrap tiers:** the light-weight commands (`branch-commit`, `what-next`, `where-we-at`, `slice-closure`, `compact-task-memory`) plus the high-frequency `implement-approved-slice` and `sync-task-state` (v3 wave1 item D) read the four sections above with two subsections of `## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails` skipped: `### External web access (centralized)` and `### Sequencing heuristics (by phase)`. Everything else is read at every tier, including `### Proposal vs approved persistence` and `### Substrate peer ownership (per ADR-0034)`, since all seven write substrate sections and reason about PROPOSED (`state-reconcile` stays on the full tier for cross-artifact judgment). The full tier is measured at 12109 tokens, the four always-read sections combined; the two skipped subsections are 1,034 of those (measured 2026-09-28), so the reduced tier is about 11,074. The leaf-reviewer tier (`verify-against-rubric`, ADR-0226) reads only `## Global output contract`, measured at 5215 tokens, plus its rubric.
- **Session bootstrap reuse (skip-if-unchanged; v3 wave1 item D):** WHEN this conversation already read the bootstrap sections in an earlier turn still VISIBLE in the context window AND `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` has not changed since, the command MAY skip the re-read and cite the earlier one, emitting one Command transcript line: `Bootstrap: reusing turn <N> read, WOS unchanged`. Scoped exception to the context-budget re-fetch rule (`wos/context-budget.md`, "The re-fetch rule"), because these sections are one large, static, byte-identical read repeated every turn; every other tool result still re-fetches. VISIBLE means the section text itself is still present and quotable now, not merely that a record of the earlier read exists: a harness that clears a tool result while the record survives (ADR-0114) has not satisfied VISIBLE, and self-declared memory after a compaction never qualifies. A stateless-per-turn harness is excluded. The transcript line is mandatory; a silent skip is invalid output.
- **Resolving the spec and `wos/<topic>.md`:** canonical repository FIRST. Otherwise use active-adapter docs: `~/.claude/workflow-docs` (`CLAUDE_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`), `~/.cursor/workflow-docs` (`WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`; project `.cursor/workflow-docs` on project installs), `~/.codex/workflow-docs` (`CODEX_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`), or `<kimi-home>/workflow-docs` (`KIMI_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`). Nonempty overrides win. Kimi home: `KIMI_CODE_HOME`, else existing `~/.kimi-code`, else existing `~/.kimi`, default `~/.kimi-code`. Use one root for both paths; try other adapters if absent or unknown. Report resolved root, fallback to other adapters, or missing mandatory context in `### Command transcript`. Installed snapshots refresh and prune retired topics only on sync.
- Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
- Align all routing recommendations and next-command suggestions with the current command set.
- **Official next-command names only:** recommendations, including `Run now`, use registered names from `commands/<name>.md` or `commands/<name>/SKILL.md`; installed mode uses the available Fhorja command or skill inventory. No invented aliases. `Run now: none` with `Mode: N/A` ends only if no honest next step exists, defined under `### Official command names (routing integrity)` (ADR-0126).
Required inputs:
- active task folder path
- TASK_STATE.md, DECISIONS.md, IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md (API contract lives here)
- optional: existing API routes/controllers (for consistency comparison)
- optional: OpenAPI spec or Postman collection (if available)

Operating rules:
- **Handoff:** end with the adaptive `### Handoff` block per `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` `## Global output contract` (Mode A compact or Mode B full).
- **Step 1: Extract proposed contract.** Read the API endpoints described in IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md or DECISIONS.md. For each: method, path, request body, response shape, status codes, auth requirement.
- **Step 2: Naming and path consistency.** Check: (a) resource naming is plural and consistent (`/drivers`, not `/driver`), (b) path hierarchy reflects resource relationships (`/verification-runs/:id/share`, not `/share-verification-run`), (c) naming matches existing endpoints in the same service (read existing route files for convention).
- **Step 3: HTTP method correctness.** Check: (a) GET for reads (no side effects), (b) POST for creates, (c) PUT/PATCH for updates, (d) DELETE for deletes. Flag method misuse (e.g., GET that mutates state, POST that is idempotent without declaring it).
- **Step 4: Request/response shape quality.** Check: (a) field names are consistent casing (camelCase or snake_case, not mixed), (b) response envelope is consistent with sibling endpoints (`{ data }` vs bare object vs `{ success, data }`), (c) nullable fields are explicitly typed, (d) no overly generic fields (`metadata`, `extra`, `payload` without schema).
- **Step 5: Error contract.** Check: (a) error responses use a consistent shape across endpoints (e.g., `{ error: { code, message } }`), (b) status codes are semantically correct (404 for not found, 409 for conflict, 422 for validation, not 400 for everything), (c) error codes are machine-readable (enum, not free-text), (d) no sensitive information leaked in error messages.
- **Step 6: Auth and authorization model.** Check: (a) every write endpoint has auth, (b) auth mechanism is consistent (JWT, API key, cookie), (c) tenant scoping is explicit (which endpoints need company_id filter), (d) public endpoints are intentionally public (documented as such).
- **Step 7: Pagination.** Check: (a) list endpoints have pagination params (limit/offset or cursor), (b) response includes total count or hasMore indicator, (c) default limit is reasonable (not unlimited).
- **Step 8: Idempotency.** Check: (a) mutation endpoints that trigger side effects (email, payment, webhook) have idempotency strategy, (b) retry-safety is documented.
- **Step 9: Versioning.** Check: (a) is there a versioning strategy (URL path, header, none)? (b) if none: are all changes backward-compatible?
- **Step 10: Alignment with existing API.** Read existing route files and controllers. Check: does the proposed API follow the same conventions (auth middleware, error handling, response shape, naming)?
- Do not implement code. This command reviews design only.
- If the API design is solid, say so clearly.

Required output:
1. Contract summary (endpoints, methods, auth, shapes)
2. Findings per check (naming, methods, shapes, errors, auth, pagination, idempotency, versioning, alignment)
3. Overall assessment (ready to implement / needs revision / has blocking issues)
4. Recommended next command

### Reference grounding (design gate)
**Reference grounding (design gate, ADR-0043 D-3).** This command does not edit code, so it does NOT refuse. It marks. Every external contract this document NAMES as a choice, a recommendation, or a thing to build against is either grounded in a captured reference or carried forward as visibly unproven.

1. Detect. Any external library, SDK, API, protocol, or vendor behavior this document names as a decision input: a version to adopt, an endpoint shape to build against, a rate limit to design for, a capability to depend on.
2. Ground or mark. WHEN the contract is present in `projects/<client>__<project>/REFERENCES.md`, read that entry and cite it inline where the decision is stated. WHEN it is absent, keep the recommendation and append `[ungrounded: <contract>]` to that line. Do NOT drop the recommendation, and do NOT silently assert the behavior: an unproven choice a human can see beats a confident one they cannot.
3. Never launder recollection into a design. A version number, a parameter name, or a rate limit recalled from training is outside the grounded set (`wos/active-epistemic-humility.md`). It may appear as a proposal, marked, never as a stated fact.
4. Route, do not block. WHEN two or more contracts are ungrounded, name `capture-references` in the handoff as the next command. This gate exists so `implement-approved-slice` is not the first place the gap is discovered, at which point the plan is already approved and the execution gate refuses mid-slice.
5. Carry the marks forward. Every `[ungrounded: ...]` marker SHALL survive into the persisted artifact. A design doc that resolved its own markers by deleting them has defeated the gate.
### Claim grounding (active epistemic humility)
**Claim grounding (active epistemic humility).** This block governs what you may assert and how you record it. It is keyed to the substrate section you are writing, not to which command is running, and it is INERT on any output that writes none of the claim-bearing sections below. Full contract and rationale: `wos/active-epistemic-humility.md`.

1. When this applies. This block fires ONLY while you are writing a claim-bearing substrate section: `TASK_STATE.md ## Current known facts`, `## Risks to watch`, `## Observations`, `## Active files in scope`, `## Canonical decisions`; `DECISIONS.md ## Locked decisions`; `IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md ## Current gaps`, `## Risks and mitigations`; `IMPACT_ANALYSIS.md`; `EXTERNAL_RESEARCH.md`; `REFERENCES.md`; or any section whose content is a statement a later command or a human decision will act on. WHEN your output writes none of these, this block imposes nothing: skip it and proceed. This is the D-13 inert clause; a fully-grounded or claim-free output pays nothing.

2. The unit is the load-bearing claim. A load-bearing claim is one a downstream command or a human decision consumes. A passing aside is not load-bearing; a statement someone will act on is. Apply the rest of this block per load-bearing claim, not per sentence.

3. Ground it or abstain. Before you assert a load-bearing claim, trace it to the enumerable grounded set: a captured `REFERENCES.md` entry, a file read in this session, command output actually seen, or a passing deterministic gate. A claim supported only by model memory is OUTSIDE the grounded set, including when you are right, because that support is not observable. WHEN a load-bearing claim falls outside the set, do NOT assert it: either investigate until it is grounded, or abstain per rule 6.

4. Status records provenance, never confidence. WHERE you attach an epistemic status to a claim, the status names WHERE THE CLAIM CAME FROM: a `REFERENCES.md` entry title, a file path plus line, or the gate output it came from. It SHALL NOT express a degree of certainty. Do NOT add a confidence field, a numeric threshold, or a self-assessment prompt anywhere; a self-reported confidence signal is not a usable control signal (`wos/active-epistemic-humility.md` Part 1.3). A status whose referent slot is empty is read as UNKNOWN, not as a weak yes.

5. Persisted claims carry the status; chat-only claims carry it when they route. Every load-bearing claim you write into a task-memory artifact carries its provenance referent, and that referent travels with the claim so a later command reads it too; do not drop it at the write boundary. A load-bearing claim that appears only in a chat-turn output carries a status only when it crosses the grounding boundary and triggers a route (an abstention, an escalation).

6. Abstain as a routed continuation, never a bare refusal. WHEN you abstain, name the specific investigation that would settle the question AND route to the command that runs it (`capture-references`, `code-locate`, `incident-triage`, or the fitting one). A withholding that stalls the work is invalid output. Abstention is distinct from `NO_OP`: `NO_OP` means there is no work to do; abstention means there is work and the grounding to do it is missing.

7. An unfired gate is not evidence. The absence of a fired check does not mean grounding existed. Do not read silence here as a pass.
### Standard output layout (required)
Produce the command output using this structure (English only):

### Artifact changes
Follow `## Global output contract` in `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` for `APPLIED` / `PROPOSED` / `SKIP` rules. Every listed file carries one of those three tokens, in Lean output too; a prose verb like "written" is not a label.

### Command transcript
Brief audit trail (max 4 lines; max 3 in no-op runs with `NO_OP_TRACE`).

### Handoff
Use the adaptive ending format of `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` `## Global output contract`. Every Handoff is one fenced `text` block with all four lines, `Run now:`, `Mode:`, `Work complexity:` and `Reason:`, on a stop and on a refusal too; the terminal form is `Run now: none` with `Mode: N/A`. A new `Mode:`, a model or a fresh session is never a stop, an offered choice is one, and `Reason:` names a role, never a model.
### Definition of done (command output)
- Every proposed endpoint is reviewed against every check in Steps 2 to 10.
- Findings reference the specific endpoint and check that failed.
- Alignment with existing API is grounded in real route/controller files, not assumptions.
- If the design is solid, the assessment says so clearly (no invented findings).
- Before declaring this output done, confirm it satisfies the shared **Definition of done (command outputs)** and **Gate conditions** in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md.

Quality bar:
Maximize design quality signal. Catch contract issues before they become code. If the API design is clean, say so.