Use when setting up integration testing for a frontend-backend API boundary, evaluating whether two services are safe to deploy independently, or replacing slow end-to-end tests with contract tests.
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。
Integration tests that require both services running at the same time are slow, brittle, and hard to maintain. Consumer-driven contract testing decouples the consumer and provider test suites — each team can run their tests independently, yet the broker guarantees that the published contract is always verified against the live provider. This catches API mismatches days earlier than end-to-end tests, with far less infrastructure overhead.
Check whether the frontend has consumer-driven contract tests that define and verify the API contract with the backend.
Add Pact consumer tests for the frontend API client, publish the contracts to a broker, and add provider verification to the backend CI pipeline.
Explain how consumer-driven contract testing works, what the Pact workflow looks like end-to-end, and how it compares to mocking and end-to-end testing.
Review the Pact consumer tests. Flag interactions that are too permissive (any-type matchers on fields the consumer actually uses), missing status code assertions, and interactions for endpoints the consumer no longer calls.
For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance,
see references/rule.md.
Rule page: https://frontendchecklist.io/rules/testing/contract-testing
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。
概要と使いどころ
Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components related to Create a custom 404 error page. Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction.
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。
Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability related to Create a dedicated About page. Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files.
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。
Use when reviewing component libraries, page flows, or CI pipelines that need repeatable accessibility checks. Automated testing is strongest at catching structural and attribute-level issues; it does not replace keyboard, screen reader, and manual UX testing.
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。
Use when reviewing sign-in, sign-up, MFA, CAPTCHA, recovery, and re-auth flows. Evaluate the full authentication path, including error handling and backup methods, not just the primary login form.
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。
Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components related to Make notifications accessible. Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction.
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。
Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Use semantic table markup for screen readers. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.
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。