All Custom GPT tools
Store publicTarget query: API design reviewer

Review an API contract for ambiguity and sharp edges

A focused Custom GPT for finding interface footguns in supplied API contracts, endpoint specs, schemas, and configuration shapes without claiming runtime access.

Runs inside ChatGPT. Sign-in and current ChatGPT plan availability may apply. No Store position or anonymous access is promised.

API Design Reviewer GPT avatar
API Design Reviewer
Prompt-only Custom GPT by KikuAI Studio

What you provide

  • A supplied API contract, OpenAPI excerpt, endpoint spec, schema, function signature, or configuration interface
  • A usage example or relevant client constraint when it changes how the interface can be misused
  • One bounded interface or change set at a time

What you should get

  • Prioritized design issues grounded in the supplied material
  • Likely misuse examples, impact, and safer interface shapes
  • Open context questions and an overall design verdict

Use it for a narrow task.

  • Review an API contract before implementation
  • Find ambiguous parameters and unsafe defaults in endpoints
  • Check request and response schemas for misuse risks
  • Improve idempotency, validation, error, pagination, or versioning choices

Illustrative input

POST /exports accepts accountId, filterState, and format, returns 202 with exportId, and the client may retry after a timeout.

Expected format

Highest-risk design issues
- Retrying without an idempotency key can create duplicate exports.
- Caller-controlled accountId requires explicit authorization binding.
- filterState and format need documented validation and allowed values.

Safer shapes
- Require an idempotency key for retryable requests.
- Bind account scope to the authenticated caller.
- Replace opaque fields with documented schemas or closed enums.

Open questions
- Can a token act across several accounts?
- Which format values are supported?

Illustrative synthetic review only. It does not claim knowledge of an implementation or a live security test.

Limits that matter

  • It reviews supplied interface design, not implementation code, runtime behavior, infrastructure, or hidden data flows.
  • It is not a penetration test, full threat model, compliance check, or security certification.
  • Confirmed footguns should be separated from context-dependent questions.
  • Suggestions still require team review, implementation testing, and compatibility planning.

Privacy boundary

The supplied contract is sent to ChatGPT. Remove credentials, tokens, private hostnames, customer fields, personal data, and confidential implementation details that are not required for the interface review.

Try one of these prompts.

  1. 01Review this API contract for footguns.
  2. 02Find ambiguous or unsafe defaults in these endpoints.
  3. 03Review this request and response schema for misuse risks.
  4. 04Suggest a safer API shape for these supplied interfaces.

Questions before you open it.

Can it review an OpenAPI specification?

Yes, when you supply the relevant OpenAPI excerpt or contract. A bounded endpoint group is easier to review and verify than an entire large specification.

Does it run or test the API?

No. The GPT reviews the interface material you provide and must not claim runtime, repository, infrastructure, or implementation access.

Is this a complete API security review?

No. It can flag visible interface misuse risks and unsafe defaults, but it is not a penetration test, threat model, or security certification.

What happens when important context is missing?

The review should mark the point as context-dependent or ask one focused question instead of inventing authentication, callers, data flows, or backend behavior.