Last reviewed: 2026-06-21
Direct answer
Maintain CometAPI tutorial sources by treating the documentation index as the starting point, then checking the exact endpoint, model, pricing, error, or support page that backs each tutorial claim. A source pack is current only when the article can point to the page that supports the endpoint family, request shape, response shape, model-selection wording, and support path readers are asked to rely on.
For a tutorial update, use this workflow before changing examples:
- Setup assumptions: you have a CometAPI account, a test key stored outside the article as
<API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>, and a scratch client or terminal that can make one minimal request in a test environment. - Happy-path request plan: open the current CometAPI documentation index, confirm whether the tutorial uses Chat Completions or Responses, then check the specific endpoint page before sending one low-risk request with placeholder input and a model value chosen from the current model source.
- Error-path check: send one intentionally invalid or incomplete request only in a safe test environment, then confirm your example code treats the result as a failure without logging credentials, full prompts, or full response bodies.
- Minimum assertions: record the source URL used, HTTP status class, whether the response shape matches the page you checked, whether credentials stayed redacted, and whether the tutorial example still matches the linked docs.
- Pass/fail logging fields:
check_date,source_url,endpoint_family,request_variant,status_class,redaction_ok,docs_match,result, andnotes. - What not to assert: do not claim a price, model inventory, quota, latency, uptime, support entitlement, or account-specific permission from one smoke test.
For related endpoint checks, pair this workflow with Validate CometAPI Chat Completions for Production and Choose between CometAPI Chat Completions and Responses. Those guides help separate endpoint behavior from broader source-pack hygiene.
Who this is for
This guide is for tutorial authors, maintainers, and operators who update CometAPI examples and need a repeatable way to keep source packs current without guessing API behavior. It is also useful when a tutorial uses more than one CometAPI page: for example, the documentation index for navigation, Chat Completions for a conversation example, Responses for a newer text-generation pattern, the models overview for model discovery, and the help center for support wording.
The workflow is intentionally narrow. It does not replace product documentation, provider-specific model documentation, account dashboards, or production monitoring. It gives a maintainer a clear way to decide whether a public tutorial still points to the right source before a reader copies its example.
Key takeaways
- Start from the official documentation index, then verify the specific endpoint reference that supports the tutorial edit.
- Keep endpoint paths, authentication wording, request fields, response fields, model references, and support wording tied to a dated source URL.
- Check Chat Completions and Responses separately. A tutorial should not carry assumptions from one endpoint family into the other.
- Use placeholders for credentials and prompts in public examples.
- Keep smoke-test logs narrow: record evidence fields, not full prompts, full responses, account limits, or commercial details.
- Recheck model and support wording when the article asks readers to choose a model, escalate an issue, or interpret a failure.
Sanitized log-record template:
check_date: 2026-06-21
source_url: https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat
endpoint_family: chat_completions
request_variant: minimal_placeholder_request
status_class: 2xx_or_expected_error
redaction_ok: true
docs_match: true_or_false
result: pass_or_fail
notes: placeholder observation only
A useful source pack also records what changed. If the article update only fixes prose, note that the endpoint contract was unchanged. If the article changes a request body, response parser, or model-selection instruction, record the exact source page used for that change and the date checked. That record helps the next maintainer avoid redoing the same source investigation.
Sources checked
- CometAPI documentation - accessed 2026-06-21; purpose: verify current CometAPI documentation navigation.
- CometAPI chat completions reference - accessed 2026-06-21; purpose: verify chat completion contract areas.
- CometAPI responses reference - accessed 2026-06-21; purpose: verify responses endpoint contract areas.
- CometAPI models overview - accessed 2026-06-21; purpose: verify model catalog discovery guidance.
- CometAPI help center - accessed 2026-06-21; purpose: verify support and escalation documentation areas.
Contract details to verify
| Area | What to verify | Source URL | Accessed | Safe candidate wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Documentation entry point | The docs index still links to the pages used by the tutorial. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/ | 2026-06-21 | “Start with the current CometAPI documentation index, then open the specific page behind each example.” |
| Chat endpoint family | The tutorial’s chat example matches the current Chat Completions reference. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/chat | 2026-06-21 | “Verify Chat Completions examples against the current reference before publishing.” |
| Responses endpoint family | The tutorial does not reuse Chat Completions assumptions for Responses examples. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/api/text/responses | 2026-06-21 | “Check the Responses reference separately when a tutorial uses that endpoint family.” |
| Help and support | Support wording points readers to the current help source instead of an outdated page. | https://apidoc.cometapi.com/support/help-center | 2026-06-21 | “Use the current Help Center page for support and escalation wording.” |
Failure modes
- Evidence gap: the maintainer cannot inspect the source page, failing log, pull request, or local command output. The safe action is to stop and record the missing evidence instead of guessing.
- Scope drift: the update changes files or examples that are not connected to the observed source change. Keep the repair tied to the page you checked and leave unrelated cleanup for a separate pass.
- 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.
- Unsafe fallback: the maintainer changes models, endpoints, permissions, or retry behavior only to make one run pass. Treat access and provider failures as operational blockers, not proof that the tutorial topic is wrong.
- Weak handoff: the final note says the issue is fixed but omits the source URL, check date, changed example, and remaining uncertainty. That makes the next maintainer repeat the investigation.
- Overclaiming: a single request succeeds, and the article turns that result into claims about price, quotas, uptime, availability, or commercial terms. Keep those claims out unless a current public source supports them.
Reader next step
Before updating a CometAPI tutorial, make a small source-pack note with five rows: documentation index, endpoint reference, model source if the article names a model, support source if the article mentions escalation, and the article section each source supports. Then compare the current article against that note. If the source supports the article, keep the wording and update the reviewed date. If the source changed, revise only the affected example or explanation and record the source URL beside the change.
If your update touches request headers or example clients, review Review CometAPI Request Headers Before Shipping Example Clients. If your update touches model choices, review How to Check the CometAPI Model Catalog Before Publishing Tutorial Code. Use the smallest test that proves the tutorial example still follows the current source, and keep credentials represented only as <API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER>.
Use CometAPI Base URL and Endpoint Family Review as the next comparison point. Keep How to Smoke-test the CometAPI Chat Completion Contract nearby for setup and permission checks.
FAQ
How often should a CometAPI tutorial source pack be checked?
Check it before any tutorial update that changes endpoint paths, request fields, response handling, model references, authentication wording, support wording, or example code. Also recheck it when an article has not been touched for a while and still receives reader traffic.
Can one successful request prove a tutorial is production-ready?
No. A smoke test can show that one narrow request behaved as expected at one point in time. It should not be used to claim pricing, quotas, latency, uptime, model availability, or account entitlements.
Should tutorial examples include real API keys?
No. Public examples should use <API_KEY_PLACEHOLDER> and keep real credentials in a local secret store or environment variable outside the article.
What should be done when a source page changes?
Update the tutorial wording to match the current source, keep the change narrow, and record the accessed source URL and date in the article notes or maintenance record.
What if the documentation index and a specific endpoint page seem to disagree?
Prefer the specific endpoint page for endpoint details, then leave a note that the broader navigation or overview page may need a separate check. Do not blend the two into a stronger claim than either page supports.