Opens in a new tab

Build Apps from API specs using AI: Self-Correcting Contract-Driven Agentic Workflows with Specmatic

By Joel Rosario

Share this page

Harnessing the Power of API Specifications for Robust Microservices 

Modern microservice architecture hinges on precise and dependable communication between services. This is where API specifications serve as the linchpin, establishing clear, executable contracts that dictate how services interact. With advancements in AI, we can now take these specifications and seamlessly transform them into running applications. This article explores how AI can leverage API specifications to create a robust service with a downstream dependency, emphasizing the process, benefits, and challenges of employing such a system. 

AI-Driven Application Development: A Case Study 

Here’s a practical example to illustrate the capability of agentic AI. Consider an order service that needs to interact with a product service for details like product price and description. By feeding the OpenAPI specifications of both services into an intelligent agent, the AI can generate a running application, even easing the traditionally tedious task of setting up stubs for dependencies. 

Step-by-Step Application Generation 

The AI begins by asking an LLM to generate a Node.js application for the order service. The agent then uses a suite of tools to start the order service, stubs out its product service dependency using the product service OpenAPI specification, then runs a series of contract tests against the order service. Not surprisingly, these tests may fail initially. In our example, they did fail, but this is where the power of feedback loops comes into play. 

Feedback loops provide Guardrails 

Failed tests serve as deterministic feedback for the AI. The LLM reads these failures, understands the points of contention—such as the validation of data types—and attempts to rectify them. For instance, one of the negative contract tests generated from the specification passed a null value to a discount_coupon parameter, which was a non-nullable property as per the specification. The first version of the order service accepted this value, instead of returning a 400 Bad Request response. The contract tests caught this and provided clear feedback, enabling the LLM to adjust and re-run the tests. 

Stubbing Dependencies 

One of the noteworthy aspects is how the agent manages dependencies. Given that only the order service is being generated, the product service needs to be simulated. This is achieved through dependency stubbing based on the product service’s OpenAPI specification. By creating a stub, the agent ensures that the order service can interact with a mock version of the product service, thereby validating its behavior under realistic conditions. 

Achieving a Running Application 

As the AI makes iterative adjustments based on the feedback from contract tests, it eventually gets all the tests to pass. When the tests pass, it implies that the order service is adhering correctly to the OpenAPI specification and is tuned to handle all expected data types and scenarios. 

The Role of Deterministic Feedback & Iterative Refinement 

AI systems, especially LLMs, are inherently non-deterministic and often require iterative refinement to achieve the desired outcome. This unpredictability is counterbalanced by deterministic feedback from contract tests generated from the OpenAPI specification. Each iteration of feedback and corresponding adjustments brings the application closer to full compliance with the API specifications. 

In our case, the AI underwent multiple iterations. Initially, the system generated code, executed contract tests with Specmatic, and faced failures. With each cycle, the AI learned from its mistakes, improving the application until all contract tests passed successfully. The final result was an order service that adhered strictly to its API specifications and could reliably interact with the stubbed product service. 

Advantages of Contract-Driven Development and AI 

Amalgamating AI with Contract-Driven Development, offers development teams several advantages: 

  • Automated Application Creation 
    AI can autonomously generate applications based on specifications, significantly reducing manual coding effort. 
  • Robust Testing 
    Contract tests ensure that the application behaves correctly, adhering to API specifications. 
  • Efficient Integration 
    Dependency stubbing allows seamless inter-service communication, even when actual services are not available during the development phase. 
  • Continuous Feedback 
    Deterministic tests provide ongoing feedback, enabling the AI to make necessary adjustments autonomously. 

Conclusion 

Integrating AI with contract-driven development workflows marks a significant advancement in how we build and manage microservices. By leveraging API specifications and iterative feedback loops through contract testing, we can achieve more reliable and compliant services. This approach not only accelerates development but also minimizes integration issues, ensuring that services function as intended from the outset. 

The journey from API specifications to fully functional applications is not without challenges. However, by embracing tools and methodologies that provide clear, executable contracts, we can streamline the development process, harness the power of microservices, and build systems that are both robust and agile. 

Related Posts

api proxy recording thumb

By Naresh Jain

Replace Live Services with OpenAPI Mocks from Real HTTP Traffic with Specmatic Proxy

API proxy recording: Capture traffic, generate mocks, and simulate faults When you need to test how a system behaves when a downstream API misbehaves, API
Read More
kafka+jms

By Hari Krishnan

Contract Testing using AsyncAPI Specs as Executable Contracts

Sample projects with AsyncAPI Sample project with Kafka & AsyncAPI: https://github.com/znsio/specmatic-order-bff-nodejs Sample project with JMS and AsyncAPI: https://github.com/znsio/specmatic-order-bff-jms Sample project with Google Pub/Sub and AsyncAPI: https://github.com/znsio/specmatic-google-pubsub-sample Available in Pro
Read More
testing 202 responses thumb

By Naresh Jain

When Downstream Services Lag, Does Your API Gracefully Accept with 202 Responses?

When Downstream Services Lag: Designing Reliable APIs with 202 responses As systems get distributed, synchronous calls to downstream services become fragile. When a downstream service
Read More
arazzo openapi asyncapi demo with specmatic

By Hari Krishnan

Authoring & Leveraging Arazzo Spec for OpenAPI & AsyncAPI Workflow Testing

Seamlessly test both synchronous and asynchronous APIs in realistic workflows before they ever hit production! Discover how combining OpenAPI and AsyncAPI specs can simplify complex
Read More
specmatic genie mcp

By Jaydeep Kulkarni

Curate, Validate and Publish an MCP Server from an OpenAPI Spec with Specmatic Genie

In this walk-through we'll show exactly how we took the Postman APIs, curated the set of API end points we want to expose via MCP,
Read More
Kafka mocking

Kafka Mocking with AsyncAPI using Specmatic

The Specmatic Kafka mock is wire compatible and entirely within the control of the test, the test can run locally and in CI and deliver
Read More
JMS mocking with AsyncAPI

By Jaydeep Kulkarni

JMS Mocking with AsyncAPI using Specmatic

The JMS mock is wire compatible and can be controlled entirely from within the test. This means you can run the test locally or also
Read More
redis stubbing updated 1080p

Redis Stubbing with Specmatic Contract Testing

Instead of using an actual instance of Redis, we'll stub it out and have the contract test set expectations so that the Redis stub knows
Read More
Generate interactive examples for OpenAPI testing

OpenAPI Examples Simplified: Visualize and Generate Domain-Specific Test Data​

Streamlining API Development: An Interactive Guide to Example Generation and Validation using Specmatic  A robust, streamlined approach to API development is crucial for maintaining efficiency,
Read More

Contract vs. Approval Testing: Identifying Bugs in RESTfulBooker’s API with Specmatic and TextTest

Testing APIs: Specmatic vs TextTest Emily Bache wanted to compare TextTest with Specmatic and has published a video about her experience: The BEST way to
Read More