Skip to content
MirrorFirm

What integration contract should be settled before generating a pilot package?

An agreed adapter contract defines identifiers, action semantics and reset ownership, reducing ambiguity when generated business state meets an existing simulation runtime.

Begin with the interface your runtime can support. Share the required entity schemas, tool request and response shapes, and error conventions. Ask for a generated package mapped to that contract, with any unsupported concepts listed before they become silent omissions.

Specify identifier handling and schema compatibility. Fields such as `schema_version`, `external_id` and `entity_type` can support loading and validation, but the contract must state whether identifiers remain stable across package revisions. Define how absent values differ from explicit unknowns, particularly when missing evidence changes the permitted action.

For tools, agree whether operations are synchronous, which writes require idempotency keys and how rejected actions are represented. Assign responsibility for resetting business state, tool caches and pending background work so a fresh episode does not inherit residue from an earlier run.

MirrorFirm could supply generated fixtures and interface examples for an agreed contract. A useful first integration step is loading a fixture, executing an allowed transition, checking a rejected transition and resetting the environment. Confirm those behaviours before adding richer policy branches or additional operating systems.

Settle the boundary between generated assets and executable runtime behaviour before expanding the pilot.

Audience:
Environment builders
Content type:
Integration
Buyer question:
Scope and getting started

Content release: r-a220eb6e099b243b

More on Policy change propagation