本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

api-versioning-strategy

Choosing and operating an HTTP API versioning strategy that doesn't break clients — Stripe's date-based pinned versions, the Deprecation/Sunset header pair (RFC 9745 + RFC 8594), URI vs header vs media-type approaches, and the version-transformer pattern. Grounded in Stripe's published architecture and IETF RFCs.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md14.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

API Versioning Strategy

TL;DR: Date-based versions pinned per API key (Stripe's model) beat /v1/, /v2/ for long-lived public APIs because they let you make small breaking changes without forcing clients onto a new tree. For internal APIs, additive evolution + the Deprecation and Sunset headers (RFC 9745, RFC 8594) is usually enough. Always announce, always sunset on a date, never just remove.


Jump to your fire

SymptomSection
"Need to break a field but have 100k API keys"Date-pinned versions
"Should I do /v1/ vs Accept: application/vnd.foo.v2+json?"Strategy comparison
"How do I tell clients an endpoint is going away?"Deprecation + Sunset
"Maintaining 6 versions in code is killing us"Version transformers
"Internal API — do we even need versioning?"Internal vs public

Decision diagram

flowchart TD
  A[Need to change API behavior] --> B{Additive only?<br/>new field, new endpoint, new optional param}
  B -->|Yes| C[Just ship it<br/>no versioning needed]
  B -->|No, breaking| D{API is public<br/>+ many opaque clients?}
  D -->|No, internal/few clients| E[Coordinate migration<br/>+ Deprecation/Sunset headers]
  D -->|Yes, public| F{Can you rev compat layer<br/>per request?}
  F -->|Yes, have a transformer| G[Date-based pinned version<br/>Stripe model]
  F -->|No, big rewrite| H[Major-version URI bump<br/>/v1 → /v2]
  E --> I[Set Deprecation: @timestamp<br/>+ Sunset: HTTP-date<br/>+ Link: rel=deprecation]
  G --> I
  H --> I

1. Date-based pinned versions (Stripe's model)

Stripe published its architecture in API versioning at Stripe:

The first time a user makes an API request, their account is automatically pinned to the most recent version available, and from then on, every API call they make is assigned that version implicitly.

[Versions are] rolling versions that are named with the date they're released (for example, 2017-05-24).

The key properties:

PropertyWhy it works
Per-account default version (set on first call)New customers automatically pinned to latest; existing customers don't break when you ship a change
Stripe-Version header overrides the pin per-requestAllows gradual client migration: SDK can opt-in to a new version before the account does
Date-based names (2024-04-10)Conveys recency; no debate about what "v3" means; allows arbitrarily many small breaks instead of saving them up for a big-bang v3
Dashboard upgrade pathCustomer can preview the diff, then upgrade their account-default version

This is the only approach that scales to truly long-lived public APIs (Stripe has versions going back a decade). It costs you internal complexity (the transformer pattern in §4) but spares your customers the perpetual /v1/ → /v2/ migration cycle.


2. Versioning strategy comparison

StrategyWhere the version livesProConBest for
URI segment (/v1/, /v2/)PathCache-friendly (different URL = different cache entry); zero client configCan't make small breaks; forces a tree fork; URLs are no longer "stable resource identifiers" (per Fielding)Internal APIs, public APIs that rarely break
Custom header (Stripe-Version: 2024-04-10)Request headerTons of versions cheap; per-request granularityCan't share URLs with version baked in; harder to test in browser address barPublic APIs at scale
Accept media-type (Accept: application/vnd.foo.v2+json)Standard Accept header"Spec-correct" per HTTP; reuses content negotiation machineryAwkward to set; tooling support varies; debugging via curl is verboseHypermedia APIs, deeply RESTful designs
Query parameter (?version=2)URLEasy to test; visible in logsPollutes URL; semantically wrong (version isn't a resource property)Rapid prototyping only
No versioning, additive onlyn/aZero overhead; no client coordinationCan never make a breaking change without a new endpointInternal microservices with shared deploy

Pick by selecting your constraint:

  • "We make tiny breaks frequently" → date-based header (Stripe)
  • "We do a big rewrite every 5 years" → URI segment (/v1/, /v2/)
  • "We never break, only add" → no versioning + additive evolution

3. The Deprecation/Sunset header pair

Two IETF RFCs cover the lifecycle signal:

Sunset header — RFC 8594

The Sunset value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined in Section 7.1.1.1 of [RFC7231], and SHOULD be a timestamp in the future.

Sunset: Sat, 31 Dec 2026 23:59:59 GMT

Indicates "the resource is expected to become unresponsive at a specific point in the future." Clients SHOULD treat the timestamp as a hint, not a hard contract.

Deprecation header — RFC 9745

Deprecation: @1735689599
Sunset: Sun, 31 Dec 2026 23:59:59 GMT
Link: <https://api.example.com/docs/migrate-v1-to-v2>; rel="deprecation"

The Deprecation value is a Unix timestamp (seconds, prefixed with @ per Structured Fields). It can be in the past ("already deprecated") or future ("will be deprecated"). The MUSTs:

  • MUST use the structured-field date format per RFC 9651
  • Sunset MUST NOT be earlier than Deprecation — the spec is explicit; it's a temporal ordering constraint
  • SHOULD include a Link with rel="deprecation" pointing to migration docs

The act of sending Deprecation does not change the resource's behavior — it's a signal, not a degradation. Servers SHOULD keep the resource functional through the Sunset date (modulo emergencies).

Recommended timeline

T+0      First Deprecation: header sent in production
T+30d    Public announcement (changelog, email, docs)
T+90d    Add response logs / metrics on usage of deprecated path
T+180d   Sunset date set 90 days out
T+270d   Sunset date arrives — endpoint returns 410 Gone with migration link

For minor breaking changes on a major-version-pinned API: 6 months is the median. For full v1 → v2 sunsets: 12-24 months.


4. The version-transformer pattern

Stripe's internal architecture solves the "we have 50 versions in production" problem:

[The system uses] API resource classes that define current API response structures, combined with version change modules that encapsulate backwards-incompatible transformations. When processing responses, the system walks back through time and applies each version change module that it finds along the way until that target version is reached.

The shape:

// resource: the canonical (latest) representation
const charge = {
  id: 'ch_123',
  amount: 1000,
  payment_method_details: { card: { brand: 'visa', last4: '4242' } },
}

// Each breaking change is one transformer module:
const v_2024_03_01 = {
  // Removes 'card' nesting under payment_method_details, flattens fields
  apply(resource) {
    return {
      ...resource,
      card_brand: resource.payment_method_details?.card?.brand,
      card_last4: resource.payment_method_details?.card?.last4,
    }
  },
}

const v_2023_10_15 = {
  // Renames 'amount' to 'amount_cents'
  apply(resource) {
    const { amount, ...rest } = resource
    return { ...rest, amount_cents: amount }
  },
}

// Pipeline applies transformers in reverse-chronological order
// until requested version is reached
function transform(resource, requestedVersion) {
  const chain = transformers.filter(t => t.date > requestedVersion)
  return chain.reduceRight((r, t) => t.apply(r), resource)
}

The wins:

  • Core code stays modern — every endpoint is written against the latest schema; no if (version < ...) sprinkled through business logic.
  • Each break is one file — easy to review, easy to test in isolation, easy to delete when the last user pins past it.
  • Telemetry — you can count which transformers fire per day to plan deprecations against actual usage.

The cost: building the transformer framework. Worth it if you have >3 breaking changes per year and >10k API consumers; overkill for a <50-customer internal API.


5. Internal vs public APIs

The asymmetry matters:

InternalPublic
Coordinated deploy possible?Yes — atomic swapNo — clients deploy independently
Schema evolutionAdditive + Slack messageStrict versioning + email + dashboards + blog post
Sunset windowDays to weeks6-24 months
Versioning needOften none — just Deprecation headersMandatory
Best strategyAdditive evolution; URI version only on rewriteDate-pinned headers (if scale warrants), URI for major rewrites

The trap: companies treat all APIs as "public" and build the heavy versioning infrastructure for an API used only by 3 internal services. The reverse trap: a leaked internal API has external consumers and you can't actually break it.

Defense: make "public" a binary tag on the service. Public services get the full versioning ceremony; internal services don't, but get aggressive monitoring of who's calling them.


Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it bitesFix
Bumping /v1/ to /v2/ for one breaking changeForces clients to migrate everything for one fieldDate-based version OR additive evolution
Removing endpoints with no Sunset headerClients break with no warning; support tickets explodeAlways pair removal with Deprecation 90+ days prior
Sending Deprecation but no LinkClients know it's deprecated but not what to doAlways include Link: <migration-doc>; rel="deprecation"
Per-customer hardcoded version exemptionsBecomes unmaintainable; can't reason about behaviorUse the transformer pattern; "exemptions" become version pins
Versioning internal APIs like public onesProcess overhead with no payoffAdditive evolution + atomic deploys + Slack
Using semver (v1.2.3) on REST APIsImplies meaning that doesn't apply (what's a "patch" to a JSON schema?)Date-based names or major-only (v1)
Sunset date with no enforcementEndpoint lives forever, code rotsCalendar reminder; CI test that fails 7 days before sunset to force action

Novice / Expert / Timeline

NoviceExpert
First breaking changeBumps /v1 to /v2, copy-pastes whole treeConsiders date-based pin, evaluates whether change is actually breaking
Telling clients about deprecationEmail blastDeprecation + Sunset headers + Link + email + dashboard banner
Maintaining 5 versions5 if/else branches in every controllerTransformer modules, latest-only core code
Sunset enforcement"We'll get to it"Sunset date in CI; endpoint becomes 410 Gone on the date
Internal API changeSame ceremony as public — slowAdditive evolution + atomic deploy; reserves heavy process for public

Timeline test: how long does it take from "we want to remove field X" to "field X is gone in production"? An expert org has a single repeatable answer (e.g., 90 days). A novice org has no answer because there's no process.


Quality gates

A versioning change ships when:

  • Test: Removing or renaming any externally-visible field is gated on a deprecation announcement at least N days old (where N is the documented sunset window).
  • Test: Every deprecated endpoint sends Deprecation: @<unix-ts> and Sunset: <HTTP-date> headers, verified in an integration test.
  • Test: Sunset value is never earlier than Deprecation value (per RFC 9745 MUST).
  • Test: Every deprecation announcement includes a Link: <docs-url>; rel="deprecation" header AND a public migration doc that exists at that URL (HEAD check in CI).
  • Test: Usage telemetry per version exists — you can answer "how many requests on the v2 path yesterday?" before you delete v2.
  • Test (date-pinned only): New API keys default to the latest version; existing keys hold their pin across deploys.
  • Manual: Sunset enforcement plan: a calendar reminder, a CI check, or an automated 410 Gone — something fires when the date arrives.

NOT for this skill

  • GraphQL schema evolution (use graphql-schema-evolution)
  • gRPC / Protobuf wire-compatibility (use protobuf-evolution-rules)
  • Database schema versioning (use zero-downtime-database-migration)
  • Library / SDK semver (use npm-package-versioning)
  • Event-stream schema evolution (use kafka-schema-registry-design)

Sources

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月1日 更新

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月1日 更新

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月1日 更新

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月1日 更新

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月1日 更新

Apply normative BDI reasoning to agents that must detect norms, choose which commitments to internalize, and resolve conflicts by comparing consequences. Use when obligations, prohibitions, or policies collide in autonomous systems. NOT for simple fixed-priority rules, pure constraint satisfaction, or domains where no real normative conflict exists.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月1日 更新

curiositech のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する