Last reviewed: 2026-07-05
Direct answer
Use this checklist when a CometAPI tutorial includes SDK code, request fixtures, or response assertions that can drift away from the current docs. Before changing a snippet, compare the example against the official Chat Completions, Responses, Models, and Help Center pages, then record only the contract details you directly verified.
A practical workflow:
- Setup assumptions: you have a test account, a non-production API key stored outside the tutorial, a disposable prompt, and a selected endpoint family from the official docs. Public examples should show
<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>, never a real credential. - Happy-path request plan: run one minimal SDK request against the documented endpoint family using the documented authentication pattern, a current model value selected from the official models page, and a short prompt that does not contain customer data.
- Error-path check: repeat the request with a deliberately invalid placeholder credential or intentionally invalid request fixture, then confirm the tutorial explains how to capture the error shape without guessing fields.
- Minimum assertions: record HTTP status class, whether the response body is parseable, whether the expected top-level response family appears, whether usage or metadata fields are present only when documented, and whether the snippet avoids hard-coded model assumptions.
- Pass/fail logging fields: record
checked_at,source_urls,endpoint_family,sdk_name,request_fixture_id,result_status,assertions_passed,fields_changed, andfollow_up_owner. - What not to assert: do not assert price, quota, latency, uptime, exact model availability, billing behavior, or provider-specific parameters unless the linked source explicitly supports that claim.
For a related production checklist, see Validate CometAPI Chat Completions for Production . If the example may belong to a different endpoint family, compare it with Choose between CometAPI Chat Completions and Responses .
Who this is for
This guide is for tutorial maintainers who publish CometAPI examples in Python, JavaScript, shell snippets, test fixtures, or internal runbooks. It is most useful when an example mentions Chat Completions, Responses, model selection, authentication, streaming, structured output, or support escalation.
It is also useful for reviewers who inherit an older snippet and need a compact way to separate source-backed edits from convenient assumptions. The goal is not to prove that every possible SDK path is current. The goal is to make each public example honest about the exact contract areas it checked: which docs page was used, which endpoint family the sample follows, which request fields were intentionally included, which response fields were asserted, and which unknowns were left out.
Key takeaways
- Treat each SDK example as a small contract test: endpoint family, auth header, required request fields, response fields, and error handling should each point back to a current source.
- Keep model values flexible. The models page is the place to verify current options; tutorial code should not imply that one example value is permanent.
- Separate smoke-test evidence from commercial claims. A passing request can prove that your snippet shape worked in a test run, but it does not prove pricing, quota, uptime, or future availability.
- Keep sanitized logs. Record what changed and which source supported it, but never paste real keys, private prompts, full responses, or account data.
- Prefer narrow language. Say that a sample follows a referenced page at review time; do not say it covers every account setting, SDK version, or future API change.
Sanitized log-record template:
checked_at: "2026-07-05T00:00:00Z"
source_urls: ["https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat", "https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/responses"]
endpoint_family: "chat_or_responses_placeholder"
sdk_name: "sdk_placeholder"
request_fixture_id: "fixture_placeholder"
credential_used: "<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>"
result_status: "pass_or_fail_placeholder"
assertions_passed: ["status_class_recorded", "response_parse_recorded", "documented_fields_checked"]
fields_changed: ["field_name_placeholder"]
follow_up_owner: "owner_placeholder"
notes: "sanitized_notes_only"
A good drift review ends with a small, repeatable artifact: the source URLs checked, the date checked, the snippet or fixture identifier, the endpoint family, and a short decision about whether the example should be updated, left unchanged, or paused until the source mismatch is resolved.
Sources checked
- CometAPI chat completions reference - accessed 2026-07-05; purpose: verify chat completion contract areas.
- CometAPI documentation - accessed 2026-07-05; purpose: verify current CometAPI documentation navigation.
- CometAPI help center - accessed 2026-07-05; purpose: verify support and escalation documentation areas.
- CometAPI responses reference - accessed 2026-07-05; purpose: verify responses endpoint contract areas.
- CometAPI models overview - accessed 2026-07-05; purpose: verify model catalog discovery guidance.
Contract details to verify
| Area | What to verify | Source URL | Accessed | Safe candidate wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chat endpoint family | Confirm the tutorial’s chat example uses the documented Chat Completions endpoint family and request shape. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat | 2026-07-05 | “This example follows the current Chat Completions reference; re-check the linked page before changing request fields.” |
| Authentication | Confirm the example uses the documented bearer-token pattern and never prints a real key. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat | 2026-07-05 | “Store the CometAPI key outside the snippet and show <API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER> in public examples.” |
| Responses endpoint family | Confirm whether the example belongs on the Responses endpoint instead of Chat Completions. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/responses | 2026-07-05 | “Use the Responses reference when the tutorial is built around the Responses endpoint family.” |
| Support path | Confirm where to send account, dashboard, or support questions that a code sample cannot answer. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/support/help-center | 2026-07-05 | “Escalate account-specific questions through the official help path instead of encoding assumptions in tutorial code.” |
Failure modes
- Evidence gap: the maintainer 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 maintainer edits files 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 example 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 maintainer repeat the investigation.
The most common mistake is turning a narrow SDK example into a broad platform claim. A tutorial can say that a fixture was checked against a linked page on a specific review date. It should not claim that a model will remain available, that a particular account has access, that a response field is always present, or that production behavior has been proven by one smoke test. Keep the wording proportional to the evidence.
Reader next step
Pick one SDK example that your tutorial already publishes and run a one-page drift review before editing it. Start with the endpoint family: decide whether the example is meant to follow Chat Completions or Responses, then open the matching reference page and write down the source URL and review date. Next, check the model guidance against the models overview, replace any real credential with <API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>, and run a minimal request only in a non-production setting.
When the request finishes, do not paste the full response into the tutorial. Record the status class, whether the body was parseable, which documented fields you relied on, and which fields you deliberately avoided because the docs did not support them. If the snippet changed, add a short note explaining which source justified the edit. If the source and snippet disagree, pause the public update and use the support path for account-specific uncertainty.
For a broader source-review workflow, read Review Sources Before Publishing CometAPI Code Samples before you update multiple examples at once.
Use Chat Schema Notes for Tutorial Maintainers as the next comparison point. Keep Verify CometAPI Base URLs Before Publishing Tutorial Examples nearby for setup and permission checks.
FAQ
How often should SDK examples be checked?
Check examples before every tutorial update and whenever the official docs page used by that example changes. For stable tutorials, schedule a periodic review so snippets do not rely on old endpoint or model assumptions.
Can I publish a model ID directly in a tutorial?
Only when you verify it against the current models documentation at review time. Prefer wording that tells readers to choose a current model from the official models page for their own account and test case.
Should a passing smoke test prove the integration is production-ready?
No. A smoke test only supports narrow claims about the tested request shape and response parsing. Production readiness also depends on account configuration, monitoring, rollback plans, privacy handling, cost controls, and support expectations.
What should I do when the SDK example and docs disagree?
Pause the edit, record the source URLs checked, isolate the mismatch, and update the tutorial only with source-backed wording. If the issue appears account-specific, use the official help path instead of guessing.
Should tutorial logs include full prompts or full responses?
No. Use sanitized placeholders. Keep enough detail to explain what was checked, but remove private prompts, customer data, account identifiers, credentials, and full response bodies.