Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills --skill review-api-contractgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-api-contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-api-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-api-contract/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-api-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-api-contract.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00055 | $0.03303 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01651 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00661 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00330 |
Grade A, and why
review-api-contract scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 317 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review: API Contract
Overview
This skill defines the review process for REST API changes — new endpoints, modified response shapes, versioning decisions, and breaking change assessment. Use it alongside review-code-quality-process when a PR exposes or modifies an HTTP API surface. Where code quality questions arise (auth middleware, error handling, testing), defer to that skill; this one focuses on the contract itself.
When to Use
- Reviewing a PR that adds, modifies, or removes API endpoints
- Evaluating a proposed API design before implementation begins
- Assessing whether a change is breaking before it ships
- Auditing an existing API for consistency and correctness
Dimension 1: Resource Naming
Goal: Verify that endpoint paths follow REST conventions and are consistent with existing routes.
Questions:
- Are resources named with nouns, not verbs? (
/usersnot/getUsers) - Are collection names plural? (
/ordersnot/order) - Are nested resources used only for genuine ownership relationships? (
/users/{id}/orders) - Are path parameters meaningful and stable identifiers? (prefer
userIdover positional index) - Is casing consistent across all routes? (kebab-case preferred:
/payment-methods) - Are query parameters used for filtering, sorting, and field selection rather than resource identity?
Red flags:
/createOrder,/deleteUser,/fetchPayments— verbs in paths/userfor a collection endpoint — missing plural/users/{userId}/addresses/{addressId}/lines/{lineId}— nesting beyond two levels- Mixing
/userIdand/user_idacross routes
Severity: MEDIUM for naming inconsistency; HIGH if a new naming pattern is established that conflicts with existing routes (causes confusion for API consumers).
Dimension 2: HTTP Methods and Semantics
Goal: Confirm each method is used according to its HTTP semantics.
Questions:
- Does GET only read? No state changes triggered by a GET request?
- Does POST create a new resource or trigger a non-idempotent action?
- Is PUT used for full replacement and PATCH for partial update?
- Does DELETE remove without requiring a request body?
- Are safe methods (GET, HEAD, OPTIONS) free of side effects?
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 317 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A ad8e64094a38
review-api-contract is a skill published in the GitHub repository mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 3,303 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
platform-apex-generate
Primary Apex authoring skill for class generation, refactoring, and review. ALWAYS ACTIVATE when the user mentions Apex, .cls, triggers, or asks to create/refactor a class (service, selector, domain, batch, queueable, schedulable, invocable, DTO, utility, interface, abstract, exception, REST resource). Use this skill…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback. Fetches unresolved threads, triages, fixes, replies and resolves via GraphQL. Use when asked to address review comments.
api-contract-review
Use when auditing CloudBase cloud API wrappers, MCP tools, generated action metadata, or related docs for outdated or incorrect action names, parameters, casing, request shapes, or missing contract tests, especially during periodic quality review or before preparing corrective PRs.
principle-model-the-domain
Apply when writing stateful logic, or when code branches a lot or repeats a shape assumption across files. Encode the domain in a structure instead of scattered conditionals.
api-reviewer
A review of an API contract, the agreed description of how software systems exchange requests, responses, events, or files.