Migration assurance
SP-API scanner vs manual audit: migration guide and scanner checklist
SP-API scanner vs manual audit explains what replaces Manual-only SP-API migration review, the removal date, the migration risks to validate, and how API Migration Guard detects the pattern.
- Target keyword: SP-API scanner vs manual audit
- Removed: Manual-only SP-API migration review
- Replacement: Static scanner plus manual review for dynamic/generated code
- Removal date: Before deadline-driven code freeze
TL;DR
| Deprecated item | Removal date | Replacement | Migration risk | Scanner detection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manual-only SP-API migration review | Before deadline-driven code freeze | Static scanner plus manual review for dynamic/generated code | Manual audit can miss repeated patterns; scanner can flag evidence but cannot prove all runtime behavior. | Scanner plus reviewer workflow |
Official status
Amazon documentation lists Manual-only SP-API migration review as in-scope for this migration. Use the official source before code freeze because deadlines and replacement details can change.
Amazon SP-API deprecation schedule Amazon SP-API deprecation schedule
Production review boundary
Comparison pages set expectations for scanner-assisted review. Static analysis reduces missed known patterns, while reviewers still own dynamic wrappers, generated clients, intentionally accepted risk and final runtime validation.
| Control | What scanner handles | What reviewer still handles |
|---|---|---|
| Known deprecated patterns | Rule IDs, severity and evidence locations. | Context and owner assignment. |
| Migration examples | Before/after evidence and validation steps. | Runtime behavior, generated code and accepted exceptions. |
| Release gate | Re-scan diff and exportable report artifacts. | Final go/no-go with rollback owner. |
Removed resource and replacement
| Old resource | Replacement | Deadline | Validation outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manual-only SP-API migration review | Static scanner plus manual review for dynamic/generated code | Before deadline-driven code freeze | Manual audit can miss repeated patterns; scanner can flag evidence but cannot prove all runtime behavior. |
What breaks
| Area | Breakage |
|---|---|
| Code pattern | Teams miss deprecated usage hidden in source, fixtures, generated clients or parser utilities. |
| Payload or schema | Output can appear healthy while API/report payload shape changed underneath. |
| Permission or data access | Access, role, retention or payment boundaries can block the commercial handoff. |
| Pagination, status or field mapping | Pagination, deadlines and sample-data reconciliation need module-specific validation. |
Before/after example
The example is intentionally small so the migration shape is visible in a code review.
Before:
review only selected files by hand
After:
run scanner, inspect rule IDs, then manually review dynamic wrappers and accepted riskScanner detection
| Rule ID | Severity | Evidence pattern | False positive condition | Validation step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scanner plus reviewer workflow | Depends on module and evidence type | Manual-only SP-API migration review | Documentation, comments, generated clients or test fixtures can require manual review. | Run a free scan across Orders, Settlement and Finances source paths. |
Migration checklist
- Run a free scan across Orders, Settlement and Finances source paths.
- Open the sample report to confirm evidence shape and export expectations.
- Prioritize blocker findings by deadline and module ownership.
- Unlock the detailed report only after the free scan shows useful evidence.
Common mistakes
- Optimizing for broad migration wording before capturing exact operation/report queries.
- Treating static analysis as absolute proof instead of tested-scope evidence.
- Sending traffic to pricing without a sample report, methodology and free scan path.
Sample report preview
The public sample report shows the same evidence shape used by paid reports: rule ID, severity, file location, redacted evidence, migration mapping, validation step and quality gate.
FAQ
Who is SP-API scanner vs manual audit for?
Developers, agencies and SaaS teams preparing Amazon SP-API cutovers.
Does the tool execute code?
No. It uses static analysis and sample validators only.
What should I do after a free scan?
Review the evidence, inspect the sample report format and unlock the detailed report if the findings are actionable.
Official sources
Validate SP-API scanner vs manual audit in your source
Run a static scan, review the sample report shape, then unlock the detailed migration report when the evidence is useful.