output-contract-enforcer — Валидация и контроль выходных данных смарт-контрактов

--- name: output-contract-enforcer description: Validates that a DAG node's output matches its declared JSON schema before passing to downstream nodes. The glue that makes multi-agent DAGs reliable. Use when checking output contract compliance, generating validation schemas from descriptions, or debugging contract mismatches between nodes. Activate on "validate output", "output contract", "schema validation", "contract mismatch", "output doesn't match". NOT for content quality assessment (use dag-quality), skill grading (use skill-grader), or general JSON schema work outside DAG context. allowed-tools: Read,Write,Edit,Grep argument-hint: '[output-json] [schema]' metadata: tags: - output - contract - enforcer - validate-output - output-contract pairs-with: - skill: task-decomposer reason: Decomposed tasks define the output schemas that the enforcer validates between nodes - skill: human-gate-designer reason: Human gate inputs/outputs need the same schema validation as automated node outputs - skill: typescript-advanced-patterns reason: Branded types and Zod schemas implement runtime output contract validation in TypeScript --- # Output Contract Enforcer Validates that a DAG node's output matches its declared JSON schema before passing to downstream nodes. The glue that makes multi-agent DAGs reliable. Without this, downstream nodes receive unpredictable input and the DAG breaks. --- ## When to Use ✅ **Use for**: - Validating a node's output against its declared schema - Generating output schemas from natural-language output descriptions - Debugging why a downstream node rejected its input - Ensuring contract compatibility between connected nodes ❌ **NOT for**: - Assessing content quality or correctness (use `dag-quality`) - Grading skill quality (use `skill-grader`) - General JSON schema work outside DAG context --- ## Validation Process ```mermaid flowchart TD O[Node output] --> P[Parse as JSON] P -->|Parse error| E1[FAIL: Not valid JSON] P -->|Valid JSON| S[Check against schema] S --> R{Required fields?} R -->|Missing| E2[FAIL: Missing required field X] R -->|Present| T{Type check?} T -->|Wrong type| E3[FAIL: Field X expected string, got number] T -->|Correct| C{Constraints?} C -->|Violated| E4[FAIL: Field X violates constraint Y] C -->|Met| V[PASS: Contract satisfied] ``` ### What Gets Checked | Check | Example | Failure Message | |-------|---------|----------------| | JSON parseable | `{broken json` | "Output is not valid JSON" | | Required fields | `status` missing | "Missing required field: status" | | Field types | `status: 42` (expected string) | "Field 'status' expected string, got number" | | Enum values | `status: "maybe"` | "Field 'status' must be one of: pass, warn, fail" | | String constraints | `summary: ""` (minLength: 1) | "Field 'summary' must have minLength 1" | | Number constraints | `score: 1.5` (maximum: 1.0) | "Field 'score' must be ≤ 1.0" | | Array constraints | `items: []` (minItems: 1) | "Field 'items' must have at least 1 item" | | Nested objects | Missing sub-field | "Field 'metadata.cost' is required" | ### The Standard Output Contract Every DAG node should produce output matching this base schema (fields can be extended): ```json { "type": "object", "required": ["status", "summary"], "properties": { "status": { "type": "string", "enum": ["pass", "warn", "fail"] }, "summary": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1, "description": "1-3 sentence description of what was produced" }, "artifacts": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" }, "description": "List of files created or modified" }, "data": { "type": "object", "description": "Node-specific output data (schema varies per node)" }, "risks": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string" }, "description": "Remaining risks or assumptions" } } } ``` ### Contract Compatibility Check When connecting Node A's output to Node B's input, verify: 1. Every field B requires is present in A's output schema 2. Types match (A produces string, B expects string) 3. A's output constraints are compatible with B's input constraints 4. If A produces optional fields that B requires → incompatible ``` Node A output: { status: string, recommendations: string[] } Node B input: { status: string, recommendations: string[], priority: number } Result: INCOMPATIBLE — Node B requires 'priority' but Node A doesn't produce it. Fix: Add 'priority' to Node A's output, or add a transformer node between A and B. ``` --- ## Schema Generation When a node description says "produces a list of recommendations with priorities," generate: ```json { "type": "object", "required": ["status", "summary", "data"], "properties": { "status": { "type": "string", "enum": ["pass", "warn", "fail"] }, "summary": { "type": "string", "minLength": 1 }, "data": { "type": "object", "required": ["recommendations"], "properties": { "recommendations": { "type": "array", "minItems": 1, "items": { "type": "object", "required": ["text", "priority"], "properties": { "text": { "type": "string" }, "priority": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 1, "maximum": 5 } } } } } } } } ``` --- ## Anti-Patterns ### No Contract at All **Wrong**: Nodes produce free-form text with no schema. **Why**: Downstream nodes can't reliably parse the input. The DAG is fragile. **Right**: Every node declares its output schema. Every output is validated before passing downstream. ### Overly Strict Contracts **Wrong**: Requiring exact character counts, specific formatting, or field values that depend on runtime context. **Right**: Constrain structure (types, required fields), not content. Let dag-quality handle content assessment. ### Ignoring Optional Fields **Wrong**: Treating all fields as required. **Right**: Use `required` only for fields that downstream nodes absolutely need. Mark everything else as optional.