Review a contract release before deployment preparation

Before you start.

Set up your workspace

Open /explorer/contracts for public context. For the owner-scoped API example below, use contracts:read. Begin with an existing test launch; this tutorial does not create, freeze, sign or deploy a release.

Examples are illustrative test plans, not customer results. Use only agreed access and non-production material.

Make the first read, then interpret it.

GET /api/v2/contracts

Use a trusted terminal and a scoped, non-production read credential supplied by your approved credential manager. The command sends the authorization header through standard input, not a literal token in the command. Do not enable shell tracing or paste the response into a public report; returned metadata may be private.

# Your approved credential manager must set HC_GUIDE_TOKEN first.
: "${HC_GUIDE_TOKEN:?Set a scoped test credential in this trusted terminal}"
printf 'Authorization: Bearer %s\n' "$HC_GUIDE_TOKEN" | \
  curl --fail-with-body --silent --show-error --header @- \
  'https://api.hybrid-chain.com/api/v2/contracts'

Read the response deliberately

• Use launchId from an actual returned launch in the documented launch_uuid detail path.
• Do not compare a source hash to an artifact hash: each identifies different material.
• Inspect state, authority and evidence independently of display names or summary trust scores.

Request paths, authentication modes and named response fields were checked against the published OpenAPI contract. Values are deliberately not filled with a fake live response. Follow the operation links for current schemas and errors.

The workflow at a glance.

Work through one useful case.

A release reviewer approved one build, but the launch record appears to reference another. Before preparation continues, the team needs to resolve the mismatch and confirm that the authority arrangement also matches the reviewed intent.

Keep one working record throughout

Use one existing test launch and create a release-review table with launchId, packageHash, sourceHash, artifactHash, networkId, authority references and evidence gaps. Compare against a separately supplied reviewed artifact reference; a matching project name is not enough.

1. 01

   Choose the launch, not just its display name

   List the visible launch records and inspect one detail record. Retain its identifier and the exact artifact references available in the response. A familiar project name or a source link is not enough to establish that the reviewed build and the intended release are the same.

   Do this

   1. Read the launch collection and select the intended test launch.
   2. Copy its launchId and artifact-related commitments into the private table.
   3. Compare the artifactHash to the reviewed release artifact using the same documented scheme.

   Expected result

   Every reviewer can identify the exact launch and whether it matches the intended artifact.

   If your result is different

   If the references differ, stop the handoff and investigate the build/version mismatch. Do not replace one value to make the table agree.

   Result: Every reviewer can return to the same launch and compare the exact commitments under review.

2. 02

   Map who can control the contract

   Inspect the authority assignments and threshold status returned for the launch. Ask which role can change which behavior and who owns each associated wallet context. Do not infer eligibility or activation from a wallet address, and do not replace configured thresholds with a generic example.

   Do this

   1. Read the launch's authorities operation and map each returned role to its accountable owner.
   2. Record threshold/readiness evidence as returned rather than assuming a generic topology.
   3. Identify any role that can change the contract after launch and make it visible in the review.

   Expected result

   The table covers control over the contract, not just the identity of the deployment submitter.

   If your result is different

   If a wallet reference is present but readiness is unresolved, retain that gap; an address alone does not establish signing eligibility.

   Result: The authority map describes the actual returned roles and flags unanswered ownership or readiness questions.

3. 03

   Compare the retained evidence

   Review the source, build, authority, approval, and deployment evidence available for the record. Mark absent or inconsistent references explicitly. Keep warnings visible until the responsible reviewer resolves them; a tidy screen or a positive summary score must not hide a release mismatch.

   Do this

   1. Open the evidence operation and review available source, build, approval and deployment references.
   2. Mark missing or inconsistent evidence explicitly and assign a reviewer.
   3. Keep accepted warnings visible with their rationale rather than treating a positive score as a replacement for review.

   Expected result

   The packet separates evidence actually retained from checks that still require another owner or system.

   If your result is different

   A public verification result is not a code audit. Escalate code correctness and security review separately.

   Result: The packet distinguishes evidence actually retained from checks that remain incomplete or require external review.

4. 04

   Agree the preparation and deployment boundary

   Confirm the exact current lifecycle and network before any separately authorized mutation. The owner of preparation must verify consistency with the reviewed intent. Signing, broadcast, and finality checks belong to their own enabled workflows; inspect their actual records instead of assuming a prepared request was deployed.

   Do this

   1. Write the exact current launch state and permitted next lifecycle operation.
   2. Identify who owns preparation and who separately owns signing, broadcast and finality verification.
   3. If a prepared request exists, compare its references to the reviewed intent without calling it deployed.

   Expected result

   The receiving team has a precise unsigned-preparation boundary and a list of independent deployment prerequisites.

   If your result is different

   Do not use a prepare endpoint as a substitute for an unavailable deployment workflow; preparation does not sign or broadcast.

   Result: The next team receives a precise handoff with open issues, required authorities, and a clear definition of completion.

Test where the workflow stops.

A useful pilot explains failure as clearly as success. Record what you observed rather than presenting these expected checks as completed results.

Artifact differs from the reviewed build

Stop the handoff and resolve the exact mismatch; do not approve by matching project name.

An authority assignment is unexpected

Escalate to its accountable owner and review the actual role before continuing.

Approval refers to different content

Recheck governance applicability rather than assuming a past approval covers the new intent.

Preparation exists without deployment evidence

Display prepared—not deployed—and retain the outstanding signing/network dependencies.

Your acceptance checklist.

Retain the environment, contract version, test time, redacted observations, unresolved dependencies, and responsible reviewer in your private evaluation report.

Keep the contract close.

These links point to documented operations, not executable controls. Check the current request schema, scopes, errors, and implementation status before using them. No credentials or live customer responses are embedded in this guide.

Read the published OpenAPI definition

Choose your next step.

Keep your worksheet and error notes. Continue with the next technical exercise using the same reference trail, and mark any stage that remains untested rather than treating the checklist as a completed deployment.

Need help with access or an unavailable integration? Contact the team with a redacted error and the guide step. Never send credentials or private records.