2565133af3
implemented（除 4 篇超长文档随后补）、proposed、rejected 全树配对； 同一流水线 + 二遍校验（paraphrase-back + 仓库上下文一致性）产出。 docs/rfc/implemented/AGENTS.md 与其 CLAUDE.md 符号链接列入排除 （agent 指令文件，与根 AGENTS.md 同策略）。
33 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
33 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
# RFC: API extractor reports
|
|
|
|
English | [中文](2026-06-11-api-extractor-reports.zh.md)
|
|
|
|
Status: proposed
|
|
|
|
> Split out from the original "Doc-sync and API reports" RFC (2026-06-11). Parts 1-2 (doc-block typechecking, event-taxonomy verification) shipped — see [doc-sync enforcement](../../implemented/process/2026-06-11-doc-sync-enforcement.md). This is the deferred part 3, kept as a standalone proposal.
|
|
|
|
## Problem
|
|
|
|
Public API changes are invisible — nothing makes "this commit changed the public surface" an explicit, reviewable fact. A reviewer reading a diff can miss that an exported type gained a field or a method signature shifted.
|
|
|
|
## Proposal
|
|
|
|
api-extractor (or `tsc --emitDeclarationOnly` + a normalized public-surface dump) producing a checked-in `etc/<pkg>.api.md` per package; CI fails if regeneration differs. Every public-API change becomes a diff line a reviewer (or review agent) must see.
|
|
|
|
## Alternatives considered
|
|
|
|
**`tsc --emitDeclarationOnly` plus a normalized public-surface dump** — the lighter mechanism if api-extractor proves too heavy; either satisfies the checked-in, diffable report shape the proposal needs.
|
|
|
|
## Acceptance criteria
|
|
|
|
- Every package has a checked-in `etc/<pkg>.api.md`; CI fails when regeneration differs from the committed report.
|
|
- A public-API change (a new export, a widened field, a shifted signature) is visible as a report diff line in review.
|
|
|
|
## Risks
|
|
|
|
The dependency is heavy and finicky — the reason this was deferred — and the report format churns with compiler upgrades, adding a maintenance surface that buys little while the packages stay unpublished.
|
|
|
|
## Why deferred
|
|
|
|
Deferred when doc-sync landed: low value for an internal monorepo where reviewers already see the source diff, and a heavy, finicky dependency. Revisit if the packages are ever published externally — at that point a stable, diffable public surface earns its keep.
|