Last reviewed: 2026-06-18
Direct answer
Before an example client is shared with users, review its CometAPI request setup against the official documentation: confirm the configured base URL, confirm the credential is loaded from a secret source, confirm the request path and payload shape match the endpoint being demonstrated, and run one small smoke test that records only sanitized evidence.
For a chat-completions example, use the official Chat Completions reference as the primary contract source. For a Responses example, use the Responses reference instead. If the example lets a reader choose a model, point them to the model overview rather than hard-coding assumptions that may change.
A practical workflow:
- Setup assumptions: the operator has a CometAPI account, a locally scoped API key stored outside source control, a disposable test prompt, and permission to send a small test request.
- Happy-path request plan: send one minimal request to the documented endpoint with a placeholder model value selected from the current model documentation, a short user message, and no production data.
- Error-path check: send one deliberately invalid or missing credential test from a disposable environment and confirm the client reports a controlled failure without printing the credential.
- Minimum assertions: the client reads the base URL from configuration, never stores the key in code, sends the endpoint-specific body shape, handles a non-success response without crashing, and records a sanitized status summary.
- Pass/fail logging fields: record test date, client name, endpoint reference URL, request family, sanitized status, response-shape check, error-path result, and follow-up owner.
- What not to assert: do not assert provider availability, model availability, pricing, rate limits, latency, uptime, or billing behavior from a single smoke test.
If you are also validating chat behavior, compare this checklist with Validate CometAPI Chat Completions for Production.
Start with CometAPI when you are ready to create an account and test a real integration.
Who this is for
This guide is for engineers, technical writers, and tutorial maintainers who publish example clients for CometAPI integrations. It is most useful before a code sample is merged, copied into a docs page, or handed to another team as a reference implementation.
Key takeaways
- Review request setup against the endpoint page that the example actually uses.
- Keep credentials in environment variables or another secret store; use
<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>in public examples. - Treat model values as configuration that must be checked against current model documentation.
- Log only sanitized smoke-test evidence, not prompts, full responses, credentials, prices, limits, or production data.
- A smoke test can confirm client wiring and response handling; it cannot prove commercial terms or service reliability.
Sanitized log-record template:
test_date: 2026-06-18
client_name: example-client-name
endpoint_family: chat-completions-or-responses
source_url: https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat
credential_source: environment-variable
request_id: placeholder-request-id
happy_path_status: placeholder-status
response_shape_checked: true-or-false
error_path_checked: true-or-false
credential_exposed_in_logs: false
follow_up_owner: placeholder-owner
notes: sanitized-summary-only
Failure modes
- Evidence gap: the agent 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 agent 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 agent 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.
Sources checked
CometAPI documentation - accessed 2026-06-18; purpose: verify current CometAPI documentation navigation.
CometAPI chat completions reference - accessed 2026-06-18; purpose: verify chat completion contract areas.
CometAPI responses reference - accessed 2026-06-18; purpose: verify responses endpoint contract areas.
CometAPI models overview - accessed 2026-06-18; purpose: verify model catalog discovery guidance.
CometAPI product home - accessed 2026-06-18; purpose: verify the public product entry point used by the reader-facing call to action.
Contract details to verify
| Area | What to verify | Source URL | Accessed | Safe candidate wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Documentation source | The example links to the current CometAPI documentation page used for its endpoint family. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/ | 2026-06-18 | “Check the current CometAPI docs before publishing example-client code.” |
| Base URL configuration | The client uses the documented CometAPI base URL pattern from configuration rather than scattering it through sample code. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/ | 2026-06-18 | “Load the CometAPI base URL from configuration and verify it against the docs.” |
| Credential handling | The example loads the API key from a secret source and uses <API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER> anywhere public copy needs a credential placeholder. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/ | 2026-06-18 | “Do not place real API keys in examples, logs, screenshots, or fixtures.” |
| Chat request shape | A chat-completions example uses the documented chat-completions request family and checks message and response-shape expectations against that page. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat | 2026-06-18 | “For chat examples, verify the request body and response fields on the Chat Completions reference.” |
| Responses request shape | A Responses example uses the documented Responses request family and does not reuse chat-only assumptions without checking the page. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/responses | 2026-06-18 | “For Responses examples, verify the request body and response fields on the Responses reference.” |
| Reader next step | The article call to action points readers to the public CometAPI site without changing source citation links. | https://www.cometapi.com/ | 2026-06-18 | “Use the product site for account setup, and keep documentation citations clean.” |
FAQ
Should an example client include a real API key?
No. Public examples should use <API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER> and show readers where the client expects a secret value to be loaded. Do not commit, print, or screenshot a real credential.
Can one smoke test prove that a CometAPI integration is production-ready?
No. A smoke test can show that the example client is wired to the documented endpoint and handles one success and one controlled failure. It does not prove availability, latency, pricing, rate limits, or future model behavior.
Should a chat-completions example and a Responses example use the same checklist?
They can share the same review pattern, but each example must be checked against its own endpoint reference. Use the Chat Completions page for chat examples and the Responses page for Responses examples.
What should maintainers do when the docs and an old example disagree?
Pause the example update, check the current endpoint reference, and revise the sample so the public code follows the current documentation. Keep old behavior out of the article unless it is directly supported by the linked docs.
Reader next step
Run the next implementation or review pass against CometAPI Base URL and Endpoint Family Review, then keep How to Smoke-test the CometAPI Chat Completion Contract nearby for the surrounding editorial and source boundary.