Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

api-breaking-change-detector

Compare C# Web API source code with its TypeScript or JavaScript clients to find mismatched data fields, required inputs, and response handling. Receive an audit report showing client impact, severity, and confidence in each match.

OriginalShow the original description

Cross-references C# Web API controllers/DTOs against their TypeScript/JavaScript consumers (React, Angular, Vue, Svelte, Node.js, or hand-written/auto-generated HTTP clients like Fetch, Axios, NSwag) to catch contract drift in both directions: backend changes that break client applications (renamed/removed JSON keys, new required parameters, status code shifts) and frontend code sending fields the backend no longer reads. Works directly against source code, not exported OpenAPI spec files. Use when the user asks to check for breaking API changes, verify frontend/backend contract sync, or audit a DTO/controller change against its TypeScript/JS consumers before merging. Not for generating new API code from a spec (see openapi-to-application-code) or scaffolding new endpoints (see aspnet-minimal-api-openapi).

See how to install

Good for

  • Check client impact before merging a DTO or controller change
  • Audit API compatibility before a release
  • Find stale request fields and missing response fields
  • Identify endpoints whose client usage needs manual confirmation

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md6.6 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

API Breaking Change Detector

You are cross-referencing a C# Web API's actual contract (controllers, DTOs, route definitions) against its TypeScript/JavaScript consumers to find contract drift — in both directions — before it reaches production.

When to use this

Trigger when the user asks to:

  • Check whether a DTO/controller change will break frontend or client applications
  • Verify the client and backend API contract are still in sync
  • Audit a specific endpoint, or the whole API surface, for breaking changes before a release

Do not use this for:

  • Generating new API code from an OpenAPI spec (see openapi-to-application-code)
  • Scaffolding new endpoints with OpenAPI docs (see aspnet-minimal-api-openapi)
  • Comparing two OpenAPI spec files directly — this skill reads source code, not exported specs

Process

  1. Discover Global JSON & Naming Policies:

    • Check Program.cs or Startup.cs for active JSON options (e.g. JsonNamingPolicy.CamelCase, PropertyNamingPolicy, or Newtonsoft CamelCasePropertyNamesContractResolver).
    • Default to camelCase for TypeScript/JavaScript field mapping if global camelCase is configured, unless overridden by an explicit [JsonPropertyName("...")] attribute on the C# property.
    • Ignore C# properties annotated with [JsonIgnore].
  2. Identify the C# contract surface. For each Controller action in scope:

    • Route: Base [Route("...")] + action [HttpGet("...")] / [HttpPost("...")]. Normalize route parameters (e.g. {id:int} or {id:guid} $\rightarrow$ {id}).
    • Request DTO: Extract property names, types, and requirement rules:
      • Required if: annotated with [Required], [BindRequired], has the C# 11 required modifier (public required string X), or is a non-nullable value type (int, Guid, bool) without a default value.
      • Optional if: nullable (string?, int?), or has a default initializer.
    • Response DTO: Property names, types, and nullability.
    • Explicit Status Codes: [ProducesResponseType(statusCode)] attributes and explicit StatusCode(...) return paths.
  3. Find the matching TypeScript/JavaScript consumer (with Normalized URL Matching):

    • Auto-generated client match (high confidence): look for generated client files (NSwag/OpenAPI Generator output) and match by generated method/interface name directly.
    • Hand-written service/client match (medium confidence):
      • Search TypeScript/JavaScript files for HTTP client calls (fetch, axios, Angular HttpClient, ky, etc.) whose normalized URL pattern matches the controller's route.
      • Normalize template strings and concatenations (e.g., ${this.apiUrl}/users/${id} or baseUrl + '/users/' + userId $\rightarrow$ /users/{id}).
      • Match normalized routes against C# routes regardless of variable naming in TypeScript/JS.
    • No match found: report as "no client consumer located" rather than guessing — do not assume an endpoint is unused just because a match wasn't found statically.
    • Label every finding with which of these three methods was used to locate it.
  4. Compare backend → frontend/client (breaks the client):

    • A DTO property renamed or removed that the TypeScript/JS interface or object model still expects
    • A new required request field the client never sends
    • A response status code the client doesn't handle (e.g. controller now returns 409 Conflict, but client error handler only handles 400/500)
    • A response field's type changed (e.g. long $\rightarrow$ string, or non-nullable $\rightarrow$ nullable) in a way the client type assumes differently
  5. Compare frontend/client → backend (stale/dead client code vs. silent bugs):

    • Harmless dead field: Client sends a payload property the backend ignores without error.
    • Silently broken bug (High Severity): Client logic reads a response property that the backend no longer returns (resulting in undefined at runtime and potential application failures).
  6. Produce the report (see Output Format). This skill does not modify code.

Output Format

  1. Scope Audited — Controllers, DTOs, and TypeScript/JavaScript files audited, along with detected JSON naming policies (e.g. camelCase enabled via Program.cs).
  2. Backend → Client Breaks — Grouped by endpoint: what changed, match method used (Auto-generated / Normalized Route Match), exact impact on the client, and severity (Compilation Error vs. Silent Runtime Failure).
  3. Client → Backend Drift — Stale fields sent or expected, explicitly distinguishing harmless dead fields from silently broken client UI logic.
  4. No Consumer Found — Unmatched backend DTOs/endpoints requiring manual confirmation.
  5. Match Confidence Summary — Breakdown of findings derived from auto-generated clients vs. normalized hand-written routes vs. unmatched routes.

Guidelines

  • URL Normalization: Always strip query parameters (?status=active) and normalize path parameters (${id} / :id / {id}) before comparing routes.
  • Naming Policies: Never assume a C# property name matches a TypeScript/JS property verbatim without checking for [JsonPropertyName("...")] or global JsonNamingPolicy.CamelCase settings.
  • Modern C# Nuances: Check for C# 11 required keyword and #nullable enable annotations (string? vs string) when assessing required properties.
  • Framework Agnostic: Apply contract matching across any TypeScript or JavaScript client (Fetch, Axios, Angular, React, Vue, Svelte, Node.js).
  • Never Fabricate: If no matching client service or DTO is found, report "No consumer located via static search" — never guess a pairing based purely on loose class names.
  • Reporting Only: Do not modify code; output a scannable, actionable audit report.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Map an existing codebase into seven documents covering its technology, structure, architecture, conventions, integrations, tests, and concerns. Link findings to file evidence, mark unknowns, and highlight differences between stated plans and the actual implementation.

  • Get oriented in an unfamiliar codebase
  • Prepare documentation for a project handover
  • Compare documented architecture with implementation
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Assess a repository’s readiness for AI agents with AgentRC and generate a standalone HTML dashboard. Review scores across nine areas, see prioritized improvements, and optionally apply scoring policies tailored to an organization.

  • Assessing a repository’s readiness for AI agents
  • Prioritizing improvements from assessment results
  • Reviewing scores under an organization’s own policy
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Generate coding agent instruction files from a project's actual code using AgentRC. Capture detected languages, frameworks, and conventions in one shared file or split rules by topic and project area, with a preview before writing.

  • Create project instructions for VS Code Copilot
  • Refresh agent rules after project changes
  • Split monorepo instructions by project area
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Customize AgentRC readiness assessments to match team or organization standards. Choose or create policies that adjust check importance, disable irrelevant checks, set pass thresholds, and define requirements for automated checks in CI workflows.

  • Set shared readiness standards across an organization
  • Focus assessments on AI tooling
  • Adjust the importance of individual checks
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Analyze supplied ad performance data to identify wasted spend, strong campaigns, and next tests. Compare channels, assess whether test differences are meaningful, and produce budget reallocation recommendations with a prioritized action plan.

  • Identify ads and keywords to pause
  • Find campaigns and audiences worth scaling
  • Assess whether A/B test results are meaningful
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

Turn code files into learning resources by adding comments that explain syntax, programming concepts, and design choices. Adjust explanation depth and repetition to the reader’s knowledge while preserving file structure, encoding, and syntax.

  • Add beginner-friendly explanations to existing code
  • Document the reasoning behind syntax and design choices
  • Adjust comment depth for readers with different experience
github/awesome-copilot40.2KUpdated Oct 17, 2026

See all skills by github

Report a problem with this skill