Contract Consistency Validation
Overview
Ensure contract changes are validated for compatibility and breaking changes are confirmed before implementation.
REQUIRED: superpowers:test-driven-development, superpowers:verification-before-completion
When to Use
- Modifying public interfaces, APIs, or shared contracts
- Changing behavior of exposed methods (null handling, error codes)
- Preparing releases with interface changes
- Modifying method signatures, return types, or error handling
Core Workflow
- Detect contract change (interface, behavior, schema modification)
- Classify change type:
- Additive: New optional fields/endpoints (Minor bump)
- Breaking: Removed fields, behavior changes, signature changes (Major bump)
- Deprecation: Marking for future removal (Minor bump + documentation)
- For breaking changes:
- Flag explicitly and halt
- Assess consumer impact
- Present alternatives (versioning, deprecation, additive)
- Require explicit user confirmation
- For pre-1.0 relaxation: Require ADR documenting scope and consequences
- For v1+ exceptions: Require justification, approvals, and rollback plan
- Update artifacts: OpenAPI specs, schemas, CHANGELOG with migration guidance
See Breaking Change Checklist and Contract Testing Strategies.
Rationalizations Table
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Adding fields is always safe" | Consumers with strict schemas reject unexpected fields |
| "Product owner approved" | Product approval does not override technical validation |
| "Pre-1.0 allows anything" | Allowed, but requires ADR and documentation |
| "Behavior improvement justifies break" | Better design does not make it non-breaking |
Red Flags - STOP
- "Adding fields is safe" (without validation)
- "Customer approved the change"
- "Pre-1.0 so anything goes"
- "Just need to ship this"
All mean: Validate compatibility, require user confirmation.
Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.