Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteThere is no built-in two-way sync between YARD and RBS. A manageable approach is to make RBS the type contract, use YARD for API explanations, and update both in the same change whenever public behavior changes. Generate RBS drafts when helpful, review them against the implementation, and validate signatures in your regular workflow.
Why YARD and RBS need different jobs
YARD documents Ruby APIs through source comments and structured tags, including parameter and return information. Its type fields are largely convention-based and free-form, so they do not provide the same kind of formal contract as a signature file.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
RBS is a language for declaring the structure and types of Ruby programs in separate signature files. Treating RBS as the type contract and YARD as the place for explanations, examples, and usage guidance avoids maintaining two competing informal descriptions of the same types.
Use one review workflow for public API changes
When a public method changes, review the implementation, its YARD documentation, and its RBS signature together. Make the change in the same pull request so reviewers can compare what the code does with what each artifact promises.
#1 Best Overall
- Parameter names and order: Check that the signature and documentation match the actual method.
- Optionality and overloads: Confirm which arguments are optional and whether the API has distinct call shapes.
- Return types: Verify the declared result against the implementation, including meaningful edge cases.
- Explanations and examples: Keep behavioral details and usage examples in YARD rather than duplicating them as competing type declarations.
A useful review question is: if someone changed only the implementation, what would they need to update in both artifacts to keep this public behavior accurately described?
Bootstrap RBS signatures carefully
For an existing codebase, rbs prototype rb can generate initial declarations from Ruby source. The RBS project describes this output as a starting point: “This is only a starting point, and you should edit the output to match your signature more accurately.” See the RBS project’s prototype documentation.
Rank #2
Review generated declarations rather than adopting them as finished contracts. In particular, investigate untyped entries and inferred shapes: they signal places where the draft does not yet specify a useful, verified type. Compare each declaration with actual behavior, then edit it to express the contract your project intends to support.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Validate signatures in the regular workflow
Run the RBS validation your project uses in CI so signature problems are caught during normal changes, not only when someone remembers to inspect a file. Exact setup and commands depend on the Ruby and tooling versions in the repository; check those versions before adding version-specific instructions.
Rank #3
For important APIs, consider runtime signature testing as an additional check. RBS documents a facility that instruments selected methods and checks observed argument and return values against declarations. This can help reveal mismatches exercised by the tests, but it does not establish behavior for code paths that were not run. See the RBS runtime type-checking documentation.
Handle dependency signatures separately
If a dependency does not ship RBS definitions, an RBS collection entry or a project-local signature can fill that gap. The RBS project documents collections for managing signatures for gems: RBS collection documentation.
Rank #4
That solves a dependency-typing problem; it does not synchronize your project’s YARD comments with its RBS files. Keep the dependency definitions and your own public API review process distinct.
What not to expect from automatic synchronization
The YARD and RBS documentation describes separate formats and behaviors; it does not establish an official automatic two-way synchronization mechanism between them. A generated RBS draft can reduce initial typing, but it is not a substitute for reviewing intended types and updating API prose.
Best Value
A community post phrased the dilemma as whether developers keep YARD and RBS in sync by hand or give up on one. That is informal discussion, not evidence of a survey or a universal practice. For a project that uses both, the practical decision is to assign each a clear role and make their updates part of one change.
Choose the workflow that fits your project
Before standardizing, check the repository’s Ruby, YARD, RBS, and type-checker versions, then decide whether signatures will be hand-authored or generated as drafts. The right balance depends on the project’s tooling compatibility, editor and checking support, the complexity of its API, and the maintenance cost of keeping public behavior current.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
