Last reviewed: 2026-06-26
Direct answer
Before an agent guide includes a CometAPI example, refresh the source pack against the current CometAPI documentation pages, the repository instruction reference, and the pull request handoff reference. The check should confirm that the guide links to reachable sources, separates documented facts from local assumptions, and records a small smoke test without claiming unsupported model, pricing, rate limit, uptime, or billing behavior.
Use this workflow:
- Setup assumptions: the operator has a test account, an approved test environment, and credentials stored outside the guide text. Examples must use
<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>instead of real keys. - Happy-path request plan: choose the CometAPI API family documented by the guide, verify the linked documentation page first, then run a minimal request with placeholder-safe input in a non-production environment.
- Error-path check: run one intentionally invalid or incomplete request and record whether the failure shape is understandable enough for the guide to tell readers what to inspect next.
- Minimum assertions: the linked source opens, the intended API family is documented, the response check has a pass/fail result, and the guide avoids unsupported commercial or availability claims.
- Pass/fail logging fields:
source_url,source_accessed_at,api_family_checked,happy_path_result,error_path_result,operator_note,next_action. - What not to assert: do not claim exact model availability, prices, quotas, latency, uptime, account billing state, or production readiness unless the linked source and the operator account evidence directly support that claim.
For a related workflow, see Validate CometAPI Source Evidence Before Your Agent Tutorial Ships . If your team is standardizing gateway calls, pair this check with Route Coding Agent Model Calls Without Endpoint Drift so the guide keeps source checks, request routing, and handoff notes aligned.
If your team is ready to evaluate a gateway for coding-agent examples, start from the current docs and then use Start with CometAPI after the guide explains what was verified.
Who this is for
This guide is for editors, coding-agent operators, and review handoff owners who publish tutorials that mention CometAPI. It fits teams that need a repeatable check before an agent-written guide includes endpoint examples, model-routing language, or pull request instructions. It is especially useful when a guide was drafted from an older note, copied from a previous tutorial, or assembled by several people who may have checked different versions of the same documentation.
The goal is not to turn every article into an API reference. The goal is to make sure the public guide says only what its sources can support. Repository instruction guidance can explain how a coding agent should follow local rules. Pull request documentation can support the review and collaboration path. CometAPI documentation can support gateway-facing statements about the documented API family, model discovery surface, and support path. Those are separate evidence lanes, and mixing them is where many agent guides become brittle.
Key takeaways
- Treat the CometAPI documentation page as the source of truth for API-family wording, not an older draft or copied example.
- Keep repository instruction guidance separate from API behavior; an instruction file can shape the agent task, but it does not prove gateway behavior.
- Pull request documentation supports the handoff workflow, not the API contract.
- Record both a happy-path and an error-path result, but keep logs sanitized and free of real credentials or full responses.
- Commercial details such as pricing, quotas, billing, and availability need their own current source before they appear in public copy.
- When a guide names a model, endpoint family, support path, or account behavior, map that sentence back to the exact source that supports it.
A useful refresh check starts with the article outline, not the terminal. Mark every sentence that describes CometAPI behavior, then decide whether the sentence is a documentation claim, an operator assumption, or a local test result. Documentation claims need a current public source. Operator assumptions need to be phrased as prerequisites, not facts about the service. Local test results need a short, sanitized record that says what was tested and what was not tested.
Sources checked
- OpenAI Codex AGENTS.md guidance - accessed 2026-06-26; purpose: verify repository instruction-file context for coding agents.
- GitHub pull requests documentation - accessed 2026-06-26; purpose: verify pull request review and collaboration boundaries.
- CometAPI documentation - accessed 2026-06-26; purpose: verify current CometAPI documentation navigation.
- CometAPI responses reference - accessed 2026-06-26; purpose: verify responses endpoint contract areas.
- CometAPI models overview - accessed 2026-06-26; purpose: verify model catalog discovery guidance.
- CometAPI help center - accessed 2026-06-26; purpose: verify support and escalation documentation areas.
Contract details to verify
| Area | What to verify | Source URL | Accessed | Safe candidate wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repository instructions | Whether the guide’s agent instructions are tied to an AGENTS.md-style file rather than hidden assumptions. | https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/main/docs/agents_md.md | 2026-06-26 | “Keep repository rules in a checked instruction file before asking the agent to refresh source evidence.” |
| Pull request handoff | Whether the guide asks for a reviewable branch, review context, and clear change proposal. | https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests | 2026-06-26 | “Use a pull request handoff when the guide changes examples or source-backed claims.” |
| Documentation surface | Whether the CometAPI docs page used by the guide is reachable and current. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/ | 2026-06-26 | “Check the current CometAPI documentation before reusing an older source pack.” |
| Responses API family | Whether the request plan points readers to the documented Responses API family. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/responses | 2026-06-26 | “Verify the current Responses API page before describing request or response fields.” |
| Support path | Whether escalation language points to a current support reference. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/support/help-center | 2026-06-26 | “Use the current help center for support-path wording instead of guessing escalation details.” |
Sanitized log-record template:
source_url: "https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/responses"
source_accessed_at: "2026-06-26"
api_family_checked: "responses"
happy_path_result: "pass | fail | not_run"
error_path_result: "pass | fail | not_run"
credential_reference: "<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>"
operator_note: "placeholder summary only"
next_action: "publish handoff | revise guide | rerun check"
A good article should also say what the check does not prove. A successful smoke test does not prove uptime, latency, quota behavior, model availability for every account, or billing outcomes. A reachable documentation page does not prove the reader’s account is configured the same way as the test account. A clean pull request handoff does not prove the API example is production-ready. These boundaries make the guide more useful because readers can see which parts are documented and which parts still require their own environment check.
Failure modes
- Evidence gap: the operator cannot inspect the failing log, source page, pull request, or local command output. The safe action is to stop and record the missing evidence instead of guessing.
- Scope drift: the article changes files, commands, or provider behavior that are not connected to the observed failure. Keep the repair tied to the failing signal and leave unrelated cleanup for a separate task.
- Environment mismatch: the local check uses different versions, credentials, feature flags, or runtime settings than the hosted path. Record the mismatch before treating the result as proof.
- Unreviewed fallback: the workflow changes models, endpoints, permissions, or retry behavior to make a run pass without preserving the review boundary. Treat access and provider failures as operational blockers, not topic failures.
- Weak handoff: the final note says the issue is fixed but omits the command, result, changed files, and remaining uncertainty. That makes the next operator repeat the investigation.
- Citation drift: the guide links to a broad documentation home page while making a narrow claim about a request body, response field, model catalog, or support path. Narrow claims need narrow source checks.
- Secret leakage: a pasted request includes a real token, account identifier, private prompt, or full response. Replace credentials with
<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>and summarize private results instead of copying them.
Reader next step
Take one CometAPI-related guide in your queue and run a 20-minute refresh pass before you publish or rewrite it. First, list every gateway-facing sentence in the guide. Second, attach one current source URL to each sentence or rewrite the sentence as an assumption that readers must verify in their own environment. Third, run one minimal happy-path check and one intentional error-path check in a test environment, then record only the sanitized fields shown above.
When the guide is ready for handoff, add a short note that includes the checked source URLs, access date, API family checked, pass/fail result, and any unsupported claims you removed. If the guide needs broader model-routing cleanup, continue with Model Routing Decisions for Coding Agent Workflows . If the main risk is secret handling in examples, review How to Write Secret-Free Examples for Coding Agent Tutorials before sharing the draft.
FAQ
How often should a CometAPI source pack be refreshed?
Refresh it before a guide ships, before a major rewrite, and whenever the guide relies on copied API examples from an older draft. Monthly checks are reasonable for stable guidance, but a shipping guide should still use the current linked pages.
Can the guide name exact model IDs?
Only when the current model source directly supports the exact wording. If the source does not support the specific identifier or availability claim, tell readers to verify the models overview before they run the example.
Should pricing or billing details appear in the guide?
Not unless a current pricing or account source supports the exact claim. A source-pack refresh can say that pricing and billing need verification, but it should not invent costs or account behavior.
What should be included in the pull request handoff?
Include the source URLs checked, access dates, the sanitized smoke-test result, and a short explanation of which guide claims changed. Keep credentials, full responses, and private account details out of the handoff.
What makes the source pack strong enough to use?
It needs reachable public sources for the repository instruction context, the review handoff context, and the CometAPI contract areas the guide discusses. If the guide discusses unsupported contract areas, revise the copy before publishing.
What if a CometAPI docs URL has moved?
Use the current reachable documentation URL for the same contract area. If you cannot find a current equivalent, remove or soften the unsupported claim and tell readers which area still needs verification.