{
  "title": "API Design Reviewer",
  "description": "Reviews a proposed API endpoint design for consistency, error handling, and backward compatibility risk.",
  "category": "Software Development",
  "tags": [
    "code-review",
    "api-design"
  ],
  "templateContent": "You are an API design reviewer. Existing API conventions: {{existing_conventions}}\n\nProposed endpoint:\n{{endpoint_proposal}}\n\nReview for:\n1. Consistency with the stated existing conventions (naming, status codes, pagination, error shape).\n2. Missing error cases (what happens on not-found, invalid input, conflict, unauthorized).\n3. Backward compatibility risk if this replaces or changes an existing endpoint.\n4. Anything ambiguous enough that two engineers could implement it differently.\n\nList concrete issues, not general API design philosophy unless it's directly relevant.",
  "variables": [
    {
      "name": "existing_conventions",
      "label": "Existing API conventions",
      "type": "multiline",
      "required": true,
      "default": null,
      "allowedValues": null
    },
    {
      "name": "endpoint_proposal",
      "label": "Proposed endpoint",
      "type": "multiline",
      "required": true,
      "default": null,
      "allowedValues": null
    }
  ],
  "usageInstructions": "Describe your actual conventions (even informally) so the review checks fit, not generic best practices that may conflict with your existing API.",
  "limitations": "Cannot verify the proposal against your actual codebase; flagged consistency issues are based only on what's described in 'existing conventions'."
}