Last reviewed: 2026-06-17
Direct answer
Before writing a CometAPI example, review the endpoint family page, the specific endpoint page, and any model or Responses guidance that affects the request shape. For chat-style examples, the current docs identify POST /v1/chat/completions as the chat completions endpoint and show an OpenAI-compatible client setup using base_url="https://api.cometapi.com/v1". The Responses page should be checked separately when the example uses the Responses endpoint or when the chat reference points a model family toward Responses.
Use this workflow:
- Setup assumptions: you have a CometAPI account, an API key stored outside the code sample as
<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>, and a model value copied from the current model documentation or dashboard. - Happy-path request plan: pick one endpoint family, copy only the endpoint path and request fields shown on that page, send a minimal request with a harmless short prompt, and confirm the response shape matches the documented family.
- Error-path check: repeat the request with a deliberately invalid model placeholder or missing required field, then record whether the failure is documented enough for your tutorial wording.
- Minimum assertions: endpoint path matches the page, request body contains only documented fields, response parsing reads only documented fields, and model value was verified before the run.
- Pass/fail logging fields:
review_date,endpoint_family,source_urls,request_shape_checked,response_shape_checked,model_value_source,result,notes. - What not to assert: do not claim stable pricing, limits, latency, uptime, provider availability, or universal field support unless the linked source for that exact claim is checked in the same pass.
Sanitized log-record template:
review_date: 2026-06-17
endpoint_family: text-chat
source_urls: ["https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat"]
request_shape_checked: "documented minimal fields only"
response_shape_checked: "documented top-level fields only"
model_value_source: "current model reference or dashboard"
credential_used: "<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>"
result: "pass|fail"
notes: "placeholder notes only"
For a related production checklist, see Validate CometAPI Chat Completions for Production. To start from the product page after the source review, use Start with CometAPI.
Who this is for
This guide is for authors, maintainers, and integration reviewers who need CometAPI examples to stay aligned with the current documentation. It is most useful before publishing tutorial snippets, comparing Chat Completions with Responses, or updating examples that mention endpoint paths, request fields, or response parsing.
Key takeaways
- Start with the specific endpoint page, not a copied example from an older draft.
- Keep the request sample minimal until the endpoint path, field names, and response fields are verified.
- Use
<MODEL_ID>or another placeholder until the model value is checked against the current model source. - Treat Chat Completions and Responses as separate endpoint families with separate source checks.
- Leave commercial, quota, uptime, and provider-availability claims out of the example unless a current source directly supports them.
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 2026-06-17; purpose: verify current CometAPI documentation navigation.
CometAPI chat completions reference - accessed 2026-06-17; purpose: verify chat completion contract areas.
CometAPI responses reference - accessed 2026-06-17; purpose: verify responses endpoint contract areas.
CometAPI models overview - accessed 2026-06-17; purpose: verify model catalog discovery guidance.
CometAPI product homepage - accessed 2026-06-17; purpose: verify the public product entry point used for the reader action link.
Contract details to verify
| Area | What to verify | Source URL | Accessed | Safe candidate wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Documentation entry point | The overview still links to the relevant endpoint, model, pricing, support, and integration areas. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/ | 2026-06-17 | “Start from the current CometAPI documentation index before copying endpoint details.” |
| Chat endpoint family | The chat endpoint path, minimal request fields, and documented response fields for chat examples. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat | 2026-06-17 | “For chat examples, verify POST /v1/chat/completions and only use fields shown on the current page.” |
| Responses endpoint family | Whether the example should use the Responses family instead of chat completions. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/responses | 2026-06-17 | “Check the Responses reference separately before writing a Responses example.” |
| Product action | The public product page used for the reader action link. | https://www.cometapi.com/ | 2026-06-17 | “Start with CometAPI after the endpoint source review is complete.” |
FAQ
Should every CometAPI example include a real model value?
No. Use <MODEL_ID> unless the model value was checked against a current model source during the same review.
Can one example cover both Chat Completions and Responses?
Only if both endpoint pages are reviewed and the article clearly separates which request shape belongs to which endpoint family.
What should be left out of a source-review example?
Leave out prices, quotas, limits, uptime, latency targets, and broad provider availability unless a current linked source directly supports the exact wording.
What is the safest way to handle credentials in examples?
Use <API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER> and keep real keys in the operator’s local secret store, environment, or dashboard workflow rather than in the article text.
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.