Skip to main content

api-review

Author and file a separate ASP.NET Core API review issue from an originating issue and an implementation pull request or commits. USE FOR writing API review issues, preparing api-ready-for-review proposals, filling API proposal templates, creating API review descriptions from issues and code changes, "fill out the API review", "prepare API review", or opening a pull request that changes public API. DO NOT USE FOR reviewing API design decisions, approving APIs, implementing APIs, or general code review.

소스 정보

저장소
dotnet/aspnetcore
최근 소스 활동
2026년 9월 1일 16:31
감지된 SKILL.md 언어
영어
스타
38,475
포크
13,888

설치 방법

기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.

소스 파일 검토

설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.

파일 탐색기
3 개 파일

SKILL.md 표시 중

SKILL.md
소스 지침 · 읽기 전용 미리보기
name
api-review
description
Author and file a separate ASP.NET Core API review issue from an originating issue and an implementation pull request or commits. USE FOR writing API review issues, preparing api-ready-for-review proposals, filling API proposal templates, creating API review descriptions from issues and code changes, "fill out the API review", "prepare API review", or opening a pull request that changes public API. DO NOT USE FOR reviewing API design decisions, approving APIs, implementing APIs, or general code review.
# Author an API review issue Create a separate ASP.NET Core API proposal issue from the originating issue and implementation changes. ## Inputs Gather: - **Originating issue** — the issue or feature request that prompted the API change, including all comments - **Implementation pull request or commits** — the proposed implementation and its public API changes, especially changes to `PublicAPI.Unshipped.txt` Present a checklist of the available inputs. If either input is missing, use the user-input tool to request it before drafting sections that depend on it. ## Workflow 1. **Gather the evidence.** Read the originating issue and all comments, then inspect the implementation pull request, commits, and diff. Account for every changed public or protected type, member, signature, default, or convention. *Artifact:* a checklist containing the originating issue and implementation source. *Check:* both sources are available and every public API change is represented. 2. **Draft the proposal.** Fill each section of [the issue body template](assets/issue-template.md) using [the section guidelines](references/section-guidelines.md): - Background and Motivation - Usage Examples - Proposed API - Alternative Designs, when available - Risks, when available Background and Motivation, Usage Examples, and Proposed API are required. Before writing `N/A` for Alternative Designs or Risks, ask the user one focused question for each optional section whose information is not present in the originating issue or implementation changes. 3. **Add source justifications.** At the end of the issue body, map every substantive claim to a quote from the originating issue or implementation changes: ```text <<CONTENT>>: "<<QUOTE FROM SOURCE>>" ``` 4. **Check the draft.** Verify: - [ ] The background gives reviewers outside the feature area enough context - [ ] The complete API proposal is in ref-assembly diff format - [ ] The originating issue and implementation pull request or commits are linked - [ ] Larger changes include proportionate explanation - [ ] Usage examples demonstrate the intended consumption - [ ] Alternative designs are documented when available; otherwise the section is `N/A` - [ ] Risks and breaking changes are documented when available; otherwise the section is `N/A` - [ ] A champion is identified for the API review meeting 5. **File a separate issue.** Create an issue in `dotnet/aspnetcore` with: - A concise title prefixed with `[API Proposal]` - The completed issue body - The `api-suggestion` and `api-proposal` labels - The `Feature` issue type when available Use the native issue-creation tool when available so the user can confirm the operation. If issue creation is unavailable, provide the ready-to-file title, body, labels, and issue type, and state that the issue was not filed. 6. **Link the pull request.** Add the API proposal issue link to the implementation pull request without removing its existing description. ## Rules - Do not invent information. Every statement must come from the originating issue or implementation changes. General C# and API knowledge may interpret evidence but must not create missing section content. - If the evidence is insufficient for a required section, request the missing information. For Alternative Designs and Risks, ask the user one focused question per section; write `N/A` only when they confirm there is none. - The Proposed API section must use ref-assembly diff format with complete namespaces and type declarations. - `PublicAPI.Unshipped.txt` tracks compatibility but does not grant API approval. - API review may happen before, during, or after implementation. Pull request readiness and merge do not require `api-approved`. - The API proposal issue must have the `api-approved` label covering the final implemented API shape before the API is included in an RTM release. - If implementation changes the proposed or previously approved shape, update the proposal and return it to API review before the API is included in an RTM release. - Notify `@dotnet/aspnet-api-review` when applying `api-ready-for-review`. A representative must attend the API review meeting. ## Completion The task is complete when a separate API proposal issue exists with the required title, body, labels, source links, and implementation pull request backlink. If a tool or missing input blocks creation, report the exact blocker and leave a complete ready-to-file draft. ## References - **Section guidelines:** [references/section-guidelines.md](references/section-guidelines.md) - **Issue body template:** [assets/issue-template.md](assets/issue-template.md)
GitHub에서 보기