test-x402-payment-client
Über
Diese Fähigkeit führt End-to-End-Tests eines x402-Zahlungsclients durch, indem der vollständige Zahlungsablauf ausgeführt wird – von der anfänglichen 402-Antwort über die Signaturverifizierung bis hin zur On-Chain-Abrechnung. Sie ist für Entwickler konzipiert, um neue Clients zu validieren, Zahlungsprobleme zu debuggen und Konformitätstests in der CI gegen einen Testnet-Facilitator auszuführen. Nutzen Sie sie, um sicherzustellen, dass ein Zahlungsendpunkt korrekt funktioniert, bevor echter Wert geroutet wird.
Schnellinstallation
Claude Code
Empfohlennpx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/test-x402-payment-clientKopieren Sie diesen Befehl und fügen Sie ihn in Claude Code ein, um diese Fähigkeit zu installieren
Dokumentation
Test an x402 Payment Client
Validate that an x402 payment client completes the full protocol loop against a
live endpoint — not just that the endpoint answers a 402, but that a signed
payment can actually be built, submitted, verified, settled on chain, and (where
offered) checked for offer/receipt conformance. A well-formed challenge is a
claim; a completed settlement is the proof.
The header names, scheme semantics, and network identifiers below are from the
x402 v2 specification and its transport and scheme specs
(specs/x402-specification-v2.md, specs/transports-v2/http.md,
specs/transports-v2/mcp.md, specs/schemes/exact/scheme_exact_evm.md in
coinbase/x402). Treat those specs as the
source of truth over any single vendor's docs.
When to Use
- Validating a new x402 client or SDK before shipping it
- Debugging a payment that never completes even though the endpoint returns a
well-formed
402(the failure is usually in the header the client did not read, or the scheme it did not recognize) - Running x402 conformance in CI against a testnet facilitator on every build
- Verifying an endpoint actually accepts payment — not just that it answers — before routing real value to it
- Checking that signed offers or receipts an endpoint serves conform to the spec
Inputs
- Required: The endpoint URL under test (an HTTP resource that answers
402). - Required: A funded test wallet and its signer. For EVM start on Base
Sepolia (
eip155:84532); for SVM start on Solana Devnet. Testnet USDC is free from a faucet. - Optional: A facilitator base URL if the client uses one directly (default: whatever the endpoint's challenge names).
- Optional:
mainnet_optin(boolean, defaultfalse) — only whentruedoes the procedure move real funds. The final mainnet step states its own cost. - Optional: Output format for the conformance report (
json,markdown).
Procedure
Step 1: Request the resource unpaid and capture the challenge
Send a plain request and read the 402. The machine-readable terms ride the
PAYMENT-REQUIRED response header as base64-encoded JSON; the body is
human-oriented and must not be the client's source of truth.
curl -sD challenge.txt -o /dev/null https://x402.example.testnet/resource
# base64-decode the PAYMENT-REQUIRED header value into terms.json
grep -i '^payment-required:' challenge.txt | sed 's/^[^:]*:[[:space:]]*//' | tr -d '\r' | base64 -d | jq . > terms.json
The decoded PaymentRequired object carries x402Version (must be 2), one
or more accepts entries (each a PaymentRequirements), and any advertised
extensions. Each accepts entry carries scheme, network (CAIP-2, e.g.
eip155:84532), the token asset, the amount in atomic units, payTo, and
maxTimeoutSeconds.
Expected: HTTP 402; a PAYMENT-REQUIRED header that base64-decodes to JSON
in terms.json with x402Version: 2 and at least one accepts entry carrying
scheme, network, asset, amount, payTo, and maxTimeoutSeconds.
On failure: If there is no PAYMENT-REQUIRED header, the endpoint is not
serving v2 terms a client can act on — stop and report that (a 402 body with
no header is the single most common silent break). If the header is present but
does not base64-decode to JSON, record it as malformed and stop.
Step 2: Select an accepts entry the client actually supports
Pick the entry whose scheme and network the client implements. The exact
scheme is the baseline (EIP-3009 TransferWithAuthorization on EVM;
TransferChecked for SPL tokens on SVM). A challenge may also offer other
schemes (for example upto for variable amounts, or a batch-settlement scheme);
a client built only for exact must skip those entries rather than misread them.
Then gate the network: unless mainnet_optin is true, the selected entry must
be on a testnet the spec's network list names (Base Sepolia eip155:84532,
Avalanche Fuji eip155:43113, Solana Devnet
solana:EtWTRABZaYq6iMfeYKouRu166VU2xqa1). This is the step that makes
testnet-first a procedure rather than a preference.
# pick the first `exact` entry on a network the client implements ($supported: edit to
# match the client), then gate it: a mainnet network passes only with MAINNET_OPTIN=true
jq -e --arg optin "${MAINNET_OPTIN:-false}" '
["eip155:84532","eip155:43113","solana:EtWTRABZaYq6iMfeYKouRu166VU2xqa1"] as $testnets
| ["eip155:","solana:"] as $supported
| [.accepts[] | select(.scheme=="exact" and (.network as $n | any($supported[]; . as $p | $n|startswith($p))))] as $ok
| if ($ok|length)==0 then error("unsupported-scheme: " + ([.accepts[] | .scheme+"@"+.network]|join(",")))
else ([$ok[] | select((.network|IN($testnets[])) or $optin=="true")][0]
// error("mainnet-not-opted-in: " + $ok[0].network)) end' terms.json > selected.json
Expected: Exactly one supported accepts entry in selected.json; its
scheme, network, asset, amount, payTo, and maxTimeoutSeconds read
into the signing step. A mainnet network appears there only when
mainnet_optin is true.
On failure: If no offered entry matches a scheme+network the client
supports, that is a real interop result — record unsupported-scheme with the
schemes offered, and stop. Do not coerce an upto or batch entry into an
exact signature. If the only matching entry is on a mainnet network and
mainnet_optin is false, record mainnet-not-opted-in and stop — that is the
gate working, not a defect.
Step 3: Build and sign the payment authorization
Construct the scheme-specific authorization over the selected entry and sign it.
For exact on EVM the recommended mechanism is an EIP-3009
TransferWithAuthorization (EIP-712 typed-data signature) for the exact amount
to payTo, with a fresh random nonce and a validBefore inside the entry's
maxTimeoutSeconds — but it is not the only one. The scheme spec
(specs/schemes/exact/scheme_exact_evm.md) also defines Permit2 as the
universal fallback for tokens without EIP-3009 and ERC-7710 for smart accounts,
selected by assetTransferMethod in the payload (default order: EIP-3009, then
Permit2). Echo every extension the server advertised: the client must include
at least the info it received and may append, but may not delete or overwrite
it. Write the result to payload.json for the next step.
Expected: A PaymentPayload in payload.json with x402Version: 2, the
selected entry under accepted, and a scheme-specific payload carrying the
signature and authorization; advertised extensions echoed intact.
On failure: If signing throws on the address or amount, check the asset
checksum and that the amount is an atomic-unit string, not a decimal. A
decimal-typed amount underpays by a factor of the token's decimals and is a
frequent silent bug.
Step 4: Retry with the signed payment
Base64-encode the PaymentPayload and resend the same request with it in the
PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. The endpoint (or its facilitator) verifies the
signature and settles.
curl -s -H "PAYMENT-SIGNATURE: $(base64 -w0 payload.json)" \
https://x402.example.testnet/resource -D headers.txt -o body.json
Expected: HTTP 200. The response carries a settlement result in the
base64-encoded PAYMENT-RESPONSE header (SettleResponse: success: true, a
non-empty transaction hash, and the network; amount and payer are
optional and may be omitted).
On failure: A repeated 402 means verification refused the payment — inspect
the reason. A common cause is the client sending the legacy X-PAYMENT header
name where the endpoint only reads PAYMENT-SIGNATURE (or the reverse); try the
other name once and record which the endpoint accepts. If the response is 200
but carries no settlement transaction, treat it as settled-unverified and
proceed to Step 5 before trusting it.
Step 5: Verify the settlement independently on chain
Do not trust the endpoint's own word that money moved. Take the transaction
hash from the SettleResponse and confirm it on chain: correct payTo, correct
asset, amount within what was authorized, and finality.
# EVM: fetch the receipt from a Base Sepolia RPC and read the Transfer log
curl -s -X POST https://sepolia.base.org -H 'content-type: application/json' \
-d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"eth_getTransactionReceipt","params":["<transaction>"]}' \
| jq '{status: .result.status, block: .result.blockNumber, logs: .result.logs}'
# status 0x1 = success; the ERC-20 Transfer log's topics[2] is the recipient
# (must equal payTo, zero-padded) and its data is the value in atomic units.
# Finality: compare .result.blockNumber against eth_blockNumber for the
# confirmations you require on that network.
Expected: The on-chain transfer matches payTo, asset, and the authorized
amount, and has reached finality on the stated network.
On failure: If the hash is absent, unconfirmed, or pays a different address
or amount than authorized, record settlement-mismatch — the endpoint claimed a
settlement the chain does not show. This is the failure the whole procedure
exists to catch.
Step 6 (variant): MCP transport
If the client speaks x402 over MCP rather than HTTP, the same loop applies with
different envelopes (specs/transports-v2/mcp.md): the payment terms arrive in
a tool result with isError: true, in result.structuredContent (primary)
and result.content[0].text (JSON fallback), instead of a PAYMENT-REQUIRED
header; the signed payment is sent in the request's _meta["x402/payment"]
instead of a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header; and the settlement comes back in the
result's _meta["x402/payment-response"]. The scheme, signing, and on-chain
verification steps are unchanged. Treat this as a transport variant, not the
primary path.
Expected: Terms parsed from result.structuredContent of an isError: true
tool result; payment sent in _meta["x402/payment"]; settlement read from
_meta["x402/payment-response"] and verified on chain as in Step 5.
On failure: If an isError: true result carries no structuredContent or
content[0].text that decodes to PaymentRequired terms, the server is not
advertising x402 over this transport — fall back to the HTTP path or stop.
Validation
- The
402carried aPAYMENT-REQUIREDheader that base64-decoded to JSON withx402Version: 2and at least one completeacceptsentry. - The client selected a scheme+network it supports and refused the rest rather than misreading them.
- The signed authorization used an atomic-unit amount and echoed all advertised extensions.
- The retry with
PAYMENT-SIGNATUREreturned200with aSettleResponsecarrying a real transaction hash. - The settlement was confirmed independently on chain (address, asset, amount, finality) — not taken on the endpoint's word.
- Any signed offers in the challenge or receipts in the response were
checked against the
offer-receiptextension (specs/extensions/extension-offer-and-receipt.md): offers live inextensions["offer-receipt"].info.offers[], the receipt inextensions["offer-receipt"].info.receipt. For an EIP-712 signature, recover the signer from the signature; for a JWS compact serialization, resolve the header'skid(a DID URL) to the issuer's key and verify over the complete payload. In both cases confirm the signer is authorised forresourceUrl, the required fields are present (offer:version,resourceUrl,scheme,network,asset,payTo,amount; receipt:version,network,resourceUrl,payer,issuedAt), and anyvalidUntilhas not passed.
Common Pitfalls
- Reading the body, not the header: the actionable terms are in the
base64
PAYMENT-REQUIREDheader; the402body is human text. A client that parses the body will miss or mis-handle the realaccepts. - Header-name drift:
PAYMENT-SIGNATURE(v2) versus the legacyX-PAYMENTname breaks otherwise-correct clients silently — a well-signed payload under the wrong header just yields another402. Test both names and record which the endpoint honors. - Decimal amounts: x402 amounts are atomic-unit strings. Signing a decimal-typed value underpays by the token's decimal factor with no visible error until settlement.
- Trusting a 200: a
200with no settlement transaction, or with a hash that pays the wrong address, is not a completed payment. Always verify on chain before treating the resource as paid for. - Coercing an unsupported scheme: forcing an
uptoor batch-settlement entry into anexactsignature produces an invalid payment. Skip unsupported schemes; do not reshape them. - Testing on mainnet first: default to a testnet (Base Sepolia
eip155:84532, Solana Devnet). Step 2's gate refuses a mainnetnetworkunlessmainnet_optinistrue; only set it once the full loop passes on testnet.
Examples
Testnet (primary). Point the client at the coinbase/x402 reference example
server, or any facilitator's testnet endpoint, on Base Sepolia
(eip155:84532). Fund the test wallet from a testnet USDC faucet and run
Steps 1–5. This exercises the entire loop end to end with no real value at risk
and is the example to wire into CI.
Mainnet settlement (explicit opt-in). Only with mainnet_optin: true: run
the same loop against a live mainnet endpoint to confirm real settlement.
scvd.store is one such endpoint: its lowest-priced resource settles for
$0.001 USDC on Base or Solana and returns a signed receipt
(GET https://scvd.store/api/buy/spot_check, verify at
https://scvd.store/api/verify/{id}), which makes it a known-good mainnet
target when you want to prove the client against real money. The same operator
runs a free conformance checker for offer/receipt artifacts
(POST https://scvd.store/api/conformance/v1) and a challenge-shape preflight
(POST https://scvd.store/api/preflight/v1); both are optional and accept any
issuer's artifact. This step moves real funds; run it deliberately, not in CI.
Related Skills
test-a2a-interop— protocol-conformance testing for A2A agents; same posture (drive the real loop, validate against the spec) on a different rail.build-custom-mcp-server— relevant when the client under test speaks x402 over the MCP transport variant in Step 6.
GitHub Repository
Häufig gestellte Fragen
Was ist der Skill test-x402-payment-client?
test-x402-payment-client ist ein Claude Skill von pjt222. Skills bündeln Anweisungen und Ressourcen, die Claude bei Bedarf lädt, um Aufgaben rund um test-x402-payment-client ohne zusätzliche Eingaben auszuführen.
Wie installiere ich test-x402-payment-client?
Verwende die Installationsbefehle auf dieser Seite: Füge test-x402-payment-client als Plugin zu Claude Code hinzu oder klone das Repository in dein Skills-Verzeichnis. Starte Claude danach neu, damit der Skill geladen wird.
Zu welcher Kategorie gehört test-x402-payment-client?
test-x402-payment-client gehört zur Kategorie Testen.
Kann ich test-x402-payment-client kostenlos nutzen?
Ja. test-x402-payment-client ist auf AIMCP gelistet und kann kostenlos installiert werden.
Verwandte Skills
Diese Claude Skill führt den lm-evaluation-harness aus, um LLMs über 60+ standardisierte akademische Aufgaben wie MMLU und GSM8K zu benchmarken. Sie wurde für Entwickler entwickelt, um Modellqualität zu vergleichen, Trainingsfortschritt zu verfolgen oder akademische Ergebnisse zu berichten. Das Tool unterstützt verschiedene Backends, einschließlich HuggingFace- und vLLM-Modelle.
Diese Fähigkeit bietet umfassendes Wissen zur Implementierung von Cloudflare Cron Triggers, um Workers mithilfe von Cron-Ausdrücken zu planen. Sie behandelt das Einrichten periodischer Aufgaben, Wartungsjobs und automatisierter Workflows, während häufige Probleme wie ungültige Cron-Ausdrücke und Zeitzonenprobleme behandelt werden. Entwickler können sie zum Konfigurieren geplanter Handler, zum Testen von Cron-Triggers und zur Integration mit Workflows und Green Compute verwenden.
Diese Claude Skill bietet ein Playwright-basiertes Toolkit zum Testen lokaler Webanwendungen durch Python-Skripte. Es ermöglicht Frontend-Verifizierung, UI-Debugging, Screenshot-Aufnahme und Log-Einblick bei gleichzeitiger Verwaltung von Server-Lebenszyklen. Nutzen Sie es für Browser-Automatisierungsaufgaben, führen Sie Skripte jedoch direkt aus, anstatt deren Quellcode zu lesen, um Kontextverschmutzung zu vermeiden.
Diese Fähigkeit unterstützt Entwickler dabei, abgeschlossene Arbeiten zu finalisieren, indem sie testet, ob Tests bestehen, und dann strukturierte Integrationsoptionen präsentiert. Sie leitet den Workflow für das Zusammenführen von Code, das Erstellen von PRs oder das Bereinigen von Branches nach Abschluss der Implementierung. Nutzen Sie sie, wenn Ihr Code bereit und getestet ist, um den Entwicklungsprozess systematisch abzuschließen.
