Backfill the API description for routes that already exist
Endpoints that exist and are undocumented, described from the handlers with a response test per route.
The ticket
Write the API description for existing routes, derived from the handlers.
Acceptance criteria
- Every route in the group is described, including error responses
- The description validates against the specification format
- A response test asserts each route matches its description
- Descriptions are generated from or checked against the handlers
What lands as proof
A test per route asserting the real response matches the description, so the two cannot drift apart quietly.
Why teams defer it
- Consumers already learned the API by reading the code or asking, so nothing is blocked.
- Writing it by hand guarantees it goes stale, and generating it needs the handlers to be uniform first.
Questions
- What does the agent actually change?
- The ticket is scoped to one outcome: write the API description for existing routes, derived from the handlers. Work that serves that outcome is in scope, and anything outside it is left for a separate ticket, so the pull request stays reviewable.
- How do I know the work is done?
- The pull request carries the evidence, not only the diff. Here that means spec validates against a response test per route, so a reviewer can confirm the result without reproducing the work locally.
- How much oversight does this need?
- None is required before the run starts. Every claim this ticket makes can be checked by machine, so the agent works straight through and a person reviews the finished pull request like any other.