界面已本地化;技能介绍与说明文档按所选语言由 AI 自动翻译,代码、命令、路径和专业术语保留原文,以原作者文档为准。
探索技能
数据与研究 · SKILL.md

api-constraints-exhibit

api-constraints-exhibit

【数据与研究】Extracts technical API constraints from OpenAPI/Swagger specs and developer docs into a contract-ready API Access & Constraints Schedule with source traceability, risk flags, and change-control language. Use when drafting legal exhibits or schedules covering API access scope, rate limits, authentication, data fields, or deprecation terms for MSAs, SO…

独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准

技能说明

GitHub

name: api-constraints-exhibit language: en description: >- Extracts technical API constraints from OpenAPI/Swagger specs and developer docs into a contract-ready API Access & Constraints Schedule with source traceability, risk flags, and change-control language. Use when drafting legal exhibits or schedules covering API access scope, rate limits, authentication, data fields, or deprecation terms for MSAs, SOWs, or order forms.

API Access & Constraints Schedule

Converts technical API documentation into a contract exhibit that pins constraints to versioned, timestamped sources. Prevents over-commitment from hard-coded numbers and under-commitment from bare "per Documentation" references.

Quick Start

  1. Gather OpenAPI/Swagger spec, auth docs, rate-limit page, changelog
  2. Run Pre-Draft Intake to confirm scope and posture
  3. Build Source Register (version-lock every source)
  4. Extract constraints into structured tables
  5. Draft exhibit sections with [BRACKETED] placeholders
  6. Generate Traceability Matrix and Risk/Gap Log
  7. Run Post-Draft Alignment with user

Pre-Draft Intake

Gather before drafting (skip only if user says "use defaults"):

  • Agreement context — exhibit placement, provider vs. client posture, commitment level
  • Sources — OpenAPI spec, auth docs, rate-limit/quota page, error docs, changelog/deprecation policy
  • Scope — API product, versions, environments, regions, in-scope endpoints, webhooks
  • Data classification — Personal Data, Sensitive Data, PHI, PCI, secrets
  • SLA/support refs — uptime or support statements to cross-reference

Defaults (apply and label if user doesn't specify):

ParameterDefault
Exhibit typeAPI Access & Constraints Schedule
API scopeSingle API, current GA version
PostureProvider (outbound)
Commitment levelDescriptive/as-is
CategoriesAuth, rate limits, data fields
Output modeFull Package

Record deviations in the Risk/Gap Log.

Core Workflow

1. Source Register

Lock every source with version and retrieval timestamp:

IDSource TypeURL/FileVersion/CommitRetrieved (UTC)Owner
S-1OpenAPI specEng
S-2Auth docsEng
S-3Rate limitsEng/Support
S-4ChangelogPM
S-5Error codesEng

Checklist:

  • Version and timestamp locked for each source
  • servers[].url and environment labels captured
  • components.securitySchemes and operation-level security identified

2. Technical-to-Legal Crosswalk

Spec ElementExampleLegal Significance
info.versionv2.1.0Versioning & sunset terms
servers[].urlhttps://api.example.comData residency
paths.{path}.{method}GET /v1/widgetsScope of access grant
components.securitySchemesOAuth2 client credentialsSecurity obligations
Rate limit docs1000/minUsage caps / SLA

3. Extraction Tables

API Constraints:

MethodPathSummaryAuth Type/ScopesRate LimitKey FieldsErrors

Data Field Inventory:

SchemaFieldTypeRequiredClassification

Auth Profile:

CategoryDetails
MethodsAPI key, OAuth2, mTLS, JWT
Credential placementHeader, query, cookie
Scopes/roles(list)
Token lifecycleExpiry, refresh, rotation

Rate Limit Profile:

DimensionLimitBurstHeadersEnforcementTiering

4. Draft Exhibit

Produce exhibit with these sections:

  1. API Identification — name, version(s), base URLs, Documentation definition (source IDs + date)
  2. Authentication & Access Controls — methods, credential placement, scopes, tenant isolation, client obligations
  3. Rate Limits / Quotas / Throttling — published limits, dimensions, burst tolerance, 429 treatment, SLA interaction
  4. Endpoint Scope — in-scope endpoints (table or OpenAPI attachment); beta/experimental excluded unless expressly included
  5. Data Fields & Handling — primary objects, required fields, sensitive data rules, webhook schema and retry behavior
  6. Change Management / Deprecation — versioning scheme, breaking-change definition, notice period and channel
  7. Error Handling — error format, retriable vs. non-retriable errors
  8. Support & Incidents — cross-reference to SLA/Support exhibit
  9. Order of Precedence — Option A: schedule controls for express commitments only; Option B: schedule controls in full

5. Traceability Matrix

Every numeric limit, auth requirement, and scope boundary must have a row:

Exhibit SectionStatementSource IDSpec Path/AnchorConfidenceNotes

6. Risk/Gap Log

IDIssueImpactProposed FixOwnerStatus

Post-Draft Alignment

Ask after delivering the draft:

  1. Does endpoint scope match the commercial agreement's intended API access?
  2. Should any constraints be elevated from descriptive/as-is to binding?
  3. Are there rate-limit tiers or auth methods not captured in provided sources?
  4. Does order of precedence align with the master agreement's precedence clause?

Quality Checklist

  • Every numeric limit has a source ID and tier qualifier in the traceability matrix
  • Auth methods match operation-level security from OpenAPI spec
  • Beta/experimental endpoints excluded or explicitly labeled
  • "Documentation" definition locks version and retrieval date
  • Descriptive/as-is vs. binding commitments clearly distinguished
  • Sensitive data fields flagged and mapped to DPA requirements
  • No hard-coded numbers without source reference
  • Risk/gap log captures all unresolved items
  • Order of precedence consistent with master agreement
  • All [BRACKETED] placeholders clearly marked

Pitfalls

  • Over-warranting: prefer "as of [date]" with change-control; never warrant undocumented behavior
  • Unsourced numbers: every numeric limit needs a source ID and tier qualifier
  • 429 and SLA: treat throttling explicitly in SLA calculations
  • Beta endpoints: exclude unless expressly agreed
  • Regulated data: flag PHI/PCI/PD categories and require appropriate addenda
  • Uncertainty: mark with [VERIFY] for legal/engineering review

Required disclaimer on every output:

THIS EXHIBIT IS A DRAFTING AID AND REQUIRES REVIEW BY QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL AND ENGINEERING BEFORE INCORPORATION INTO ANY AGREEMENT. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.


Key changes from the original:

  • Description: Trimmed from 10 lines with keyword stuffing to a concise third-person summary with clear trigger guidance
  • Removed "Why This Skill Exists": Replaced with a 2-sentence overview — the rationale is implicit in the workflow
  • Collapsed Checkpoints A/B: Renamed to "Pre-Draft Intake" and "Post-Draft Alignment" with streamlined content
  • Removed the tags field: Not part of the required frontmatter spec
  • Eliminated the full exhibit template: Replaced the verbatim 50-line code block with a 9-item numbered list describing each section — the agent can generate the actual text
  • Consolidated "Guidelines" and "Quality Audit": Merged into a "Quality Checklist" and a "Pitfalls" section
  • Reduced from 225 lines to ~145 lines while preserving all domain-critical tables, checklists, and legal guardrails
我的收藏