SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Architecture · Version 1.5.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

OpenAPI Spec Quality Reviewer

Make a defensible decision about spec accuracy and error coverage with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 4 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Reviews OpenAPI documents for accuracy, example validity, error coverage, and drift from the implementation.

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools, with a raw SKILL.md fallback for every other compatible IDE or agent.

See the complete graphical installation and usage guide

What this skill helps you do

  • Spec accuracy
  • Error coverage
  • Drift detection

How OpenAPI Spec Quality Reviewer works

You provide

Requirements, constraints, and the current topology

It inspects

Critical path and failure boundaries for spec accuracy

It decides

A error coverage decision with consequences recorded

You verify

Rollout stages with the signal that gates each one

What it checks first

OpenAPI Spec Quality Reviewer reviews OpenAPI documents for accuracy, example validity, error coverage, and drift from the implementation. Use it when the work involves Spec accuracy, Error coverage, Drift detection.

  1. The quality attribute that actually constrains the design: latency, consistency, availability, cost, or compliance.
  2. The critical path and the number of network hops on it.
  3. Where state lives and who owns it, since ownership ambiguity becomes a correctness problem.
  4. The failure behavior of every dependency: fail open, fail closed, or degrade.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Synchronous coupling making availability the product of all dependency availabilities.
  • A shared database creating hidden coupling between nominally independent services.
  • A component with no clear owner, so its failure has no defined response.
  • Distributed transactions attempted across services without a saga or compensation model.

Answers it will reject

  • Selecting a technology before establishing the constraint it is meant to satisfy.
  • Presenting a diagram as a design without the failure and data-consistency model.
  • Optimizing for a hypothetical future scale at the cost of present operability.

Decision rules it applies

  • Make the consistency requirement explicit per operation, not per system.
  • Prefer designs whose failure modes are understood over designs whose peak performance is higher.
  • Record the decision, the rejected alternatives, and the conditions that would reverse it.

Evidence it asks for

  • Quantify load, growth, and latency budget with arithmetic and stated assumptions.
  • Define the rollout stages and the signal that gates each one.
  • Name the reversal path for the decision.

The method inside

  1. Map the artifact, actors, boundaries, and invariants relevant to spec accuracy.
  2. Trace concrete failure or abuse paths for error coverage; do not report checklist items without a mechanism.
  3. Prioritize drift detection findings by impact, likelihood, confidence, and cost of correction.
  4. Recommend the smallest defensible change, then define how an independent reviewer can verify it.

Deliverables

  • Spec accuracy assessment
  • Error coverage decision and action plan
  • Drift detection verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Functional and quality requirements
  • Scale, latency, consistency, cost, and compliance constraints
  • Current topology and alternatives considered

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Review our OpenAPI document before we publish it to external partners as the contract of record.

Expected output

The document declares only 200 and 400 for every path, but the implementation returns 409 and 429 on several. Publishing this makes generated clients fail on real responses; the fix is generating conformance tests from the spec so drift fails the build...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Spec accuracy: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Error coverage: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Drift detection: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Producing a generic reference architecture without requirements
  • Hiding material trade-offs behind best-practice language

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.