API Review Workflow
When NOT To Use
- Internal refactors behind a stable surface (use
pensive:code-refinement)
- Coupling and layering questions (use
pensive:architecture-review)
Table of Contents
- Usage
- Required Progress Tracking
- Workflow
Usage
Use this skill to review public API changes, design new surfaces, audit consistency, and validate documentation completeness. Run it before any API release to confirm alignment with project guidelines.
Required Progress Tracking
api-review:surface-inventoryapi-review:exemplar-researchapi-review:consistency-auditapi-review:docs-governanceapi-review:evidence-logapi-review:findings-verified
Workflow
Step 1: Surface Inventory
Catalog all public APIs by language. Record stability levels, feature flags, and versioning metadata. Use tools like rg to find public symbols (e.g., pub in Rust or non-underscored def in Python). Confirm the working tree state with git status before starting.
Step 2: Exemplar Research
Identify at least two high-quality API references for the relevant language, such as pandas, requests, or tokio. Document their patterns for namespacing, pagination, error handling, and structure to serve as a baseline for the audit.
Step 3: Consistency Audit
Compare the project's API against the identified exemplar patterns. Analyze naming conventions, parameter ordering, return types, and error semantics. Identify duplication, leaky abstractions, missing feature gates, and documentation gaps.
Step 4: Documentation Governance
Validate that documentation includes entry points, quickstarts, and a complete API reference. Verify that changelogs and migration notes are maintained. Check for SemVer compliance, stability promises, and clear deprecation timelines. Confirm that documentation is generated automatically using tools like rustdoc, Sphinx, or OpenAPI.
Step 5: Evidence Log
Record all executed commands and findings. Summarize the final recommendation as Approve, Approve with actions, or Block. Include specific action items with assigned owners and due dates.
API Quality Checklist
Naming
Confirm consistent conventions and descriptive names that follow language-specific idioms.
Parameters
Verify consistent ordering and ensure optional parameters have explicit defaults. Check that type annotations are complete.
Return Values
Analyze return patterns for consistency. Confirm that error cases are documented and that pagination follows a uniform structure.
Documentation
Verify that all public APIs include usage examples and that the changelog reflects current changes.
Output Format
The final report must include a summary of the API surface, a numerical inventory
of endpoints and public types, and an alignment analysis against researched
exemplars. Document consistency issues and documentation gaps with precise file
and line references. Conclude with a clear decision and a timed action plan.
Each issue must follow this structure:
[A1] Title
- Location: file.py:42
- Anchor: `verbatim source text at line 42`
- Issue: what is wrong | Fix: remediation | Evidence: [E1]
The Anchor is the exact source text at Location; it is what
citation_verifier.py re-reads to prove the finding is real.
Technical Integration
Use imbue:proof-of-work for reproducible command capture and imbue:structured-output for formatting findings. Reference imbue:diff-analysis/modules/risk-assessment-framework when assessing breaking changes.
Module Reference
- See
modules/surface-inventory.md for API cataloging patterns
- See
modules/exemplar-research.md for researching API standards
- See
modules/consistency-audit.md for cross-API consistency checks
Verify Findings Are Grounded (api-review:findings-verified)
Every finding must cite a real location and a verbatim anchor. Write
findings to .review/findings.json and confirm each citation resolves:
python plugins/imbue/scripts/citation_verifier.py \
--findings .review/findings.json --repo-root .
Drop or label UNVERIFIED any finding the verifier fails (exit 1); only
verified findings enter the report. See Skill(imbue:review-core) Step 5
and Skill(imbue:structured-output) for the schema.
Exit Criteria
- Surface inventoried, exemplars researched, consistency audited,
documentation governance checked, and evidence logged.
- Every reported finding carries a
Location + verbatim Anchor
confirmed by citation_verifier.py (exit 0), or unverified findings
were dropped or labeled UNVERIFIED.
Troubleshooting
If the audit command is missing, verify that dependencies are installed and
accessible in the system PATH. Check file permissions if access errors
occur. Use the --verbose flag to inspect execution logs if the tool
behaves unexpectedly.
