The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
stack-backend	Ready	Preview	Comment	Aug 23, 2025 11:52am
stack-dashboard	Ready	Preview	Comment	Aug 23, 2025 11:52am
stack-demo	Ready	Preview	Comment	Aug 23, 2025 11:52am
stack-docs	Ready	Preview	Comment	Aug 23, 2025 11:52am

🌿 Preview your docs: https://stack-auth-preview-04ac5a34-53b6-4d8c-b699-44e27f78ba91.docs.buildwithfern.com

All committers have signed the CLA.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

I've reviewed the changes in this PR, which adds Vercel API integration functionality. Here's my comprehensive feedback:

Todo List:

• Read and analyze changed files
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs and issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

   • Adding token validation/sanitization
   • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
   • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

   const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

   This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

   const data = await res.json();
   return Result.ok(data);

   No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

   errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
   errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

   path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
   path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
   path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

   const parts = path.split("/");
   if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

• Network calls that need mocking
• Complex error handling logic
• URL parsing edge cases
• API response validation

Recommendations:

• Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
• Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
• Test URL parsing edge cases
• Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

1. Extract API endpoints to constants
2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

Todo List:

• Read and analyze changed files
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs and issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

   • Adding token validation/sanitization
   • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
   • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

   const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

   This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

   const data = await res.json();
   return Result.ok(data);

   No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

   errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
   errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

   path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
   path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
   path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

   const parts = path.split("/");
   if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

• Network calls that need mocking
• Complex error handling logic
• URL parsing edge cases
• API response validation

Recommendations:

• Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
• Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
• Test URL parsing edge cases
• Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

1. Extract API endpoints to constants
2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

Todo List:

• Read and analyze changed files
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs and issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

   • Adding token validation/sanitization
   • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
   • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

   const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

   This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

   const data = await res.json();
   return Result.ok(data);

   No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

   errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
   errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

   path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
   path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
   path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

   const parts = path.split("/");
   if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

• Network calls that need mocking
• Complex error handling logic
• URL parsing edge cases
• API response validation

Recommendations:

• Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
• Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
• Test URL parsing edge cases
• Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

1. Extract API endpoints to constants
2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

Todo List:

• Read and analyze changed files
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs and issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

   • Adding token validation/sanitization
   • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
   • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

   const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

   This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

   const data = await res.json();
   return Result.ok(data);

   No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

   errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
   errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

   path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
   path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
   path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

   const parts = path.split("/");
   if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

• Network calls that need mocking
• Complex error handling logic
• URL parsing edge cases
• API response validation

Recommendations:

• Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
• Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
• Test URL parsing edge cases
• Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

1. Extract API endpoints to constants
2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

Todo List:

• Read and analyze changed files
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs and issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

   • Adding token validation/sanitization
   • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
   • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

   const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

   This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

   const data = await res.json();
   return Result.ok(data);

   No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

   errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
   errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

   path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
   path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
   path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

   const parts = path.split("/");
   if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

• Network calls that need mocking
• Complex error handling logic
• URL parsing edge cases
• API response validation

Recommendations:

• Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
• Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
• Test URL parsing edge cases
• Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

1. Extract API endpoints to constants
2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

I've reviewed the changes in this PR, which adds Vercel API integration functionality. Here's my comprehensive feedback:

Todo List:

• Read and analyze changed files
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs and issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
• packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

   • Adding token validation/sanitization
   • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
   • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

   const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

   This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

   const data = await res.json();
   return Result.ok(data);

   No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

   errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
   errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

   path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
   path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
   path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

   const parts = path.split("/");
   if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

• Network calls that need mocking
• Complex error handling logic
• URL parsing edge cases
• API response validation

Recommendations:

• Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
• Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
• Test URL parsing edge cases
• Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

1. Extract API endpoints to constants
2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.