api-design
Skill1 starsChanged 30 days agoMITView on GitHub
Design and evolve API and module contracts with explicit behavior, validation, error semantics, authorization, and compatibility. Use for endpoints, schemas, service boundaries, SDKs, or shared interfaces. Follow existing protocol and repository conventions rather than imposing a new API style.
191 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- RostislavDugin/postgresustheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Markssuave/Markssuave-Agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Rojios/everything-claude-codetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ishandutta2007/Awesome-Claude-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- databasus/databasustheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lhbsaa/apex-unifiedtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use db-design, everything-claude-code and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
yuexueyuSkilldb-design
数据库工程师技能 - Schema设计、索引优化、并发安全、数据库审计。当你涉及数据库表/字段/索引/SQL/迁移/MCP数据库操作、建表改表、写查询时必须使用此技能。即使用户只是说"加个字段"或"查下数据",也应触发。
Also in 4 projects that use this
InfopibeSkilleverything-claude-code
Also in 9 projects that use this
mryeastcodeSkilleverything-claude-code-conventions
Development conventions and patterns for everything-claude-code. JavaScript project with conventional commits.
Also in 8 projects that use this
tpavanipradeepSkillnextjs-turbopack
Next.js 16+ and Turbopack — incremental bundling, FS caching, dev speed, and when to use Turbopack vs webpack.
Also in 15 projects that use this
Indium-AI-LabsSkilldata-pipeline-design
Design batch or incremental ETL and ELT pipelines and warehouse models: grain, partitioning, idempotent loads, late-arriving data, data quality tests, PII controls, and cost monitoring, before building them. Use when adding or changing a dbt model, warehouse table, scheduled transformation, or ingestion job. Not for transactional schema design (use the database-design skill) or event-sourced stores (use the event-sourcing-architecture skill).
Also in 3 projects that use this
thejordanleopoldSkillthird-party-integration
Use when integrating with external APIs, payment processors (Stripe), webhooks, or third-party services. Use when implementing API clients with authentication and rate limiting, handling webhooks with signature verification and idempotency, writing contract tests for external services, or isolating third-party dependencies behind adapters. Triggers: \"Stripe\", \"payment integration\", \"webhook\", \"third-party API\", \"external service\", \"API client\", \"integrate with\", \"signature verification\", \"idempotency key\".
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions191 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 191
- affaan-m/ECC★ 246ksame name
- databasus/databasus★ 9.3ksame name
- RostislavDugin/postgresus★ 9.3ksame name
- authgear/authgear-server★ 2.1ksame name
- xu-xiang/everything-claude-code-zh★ 1.9ksame name
- Aaronontheweb/dotnet-skills★ 1.2ksame name
- epam/ai-dial-chat★ 501same name
- loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes★ 272same name
- KbWen/agentic-os★ 229same name
- DevelopersGlobal/ai-agent-skills★ 216same name
181 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- address-feedbackSkill
- agent-planningSkill
- anti-ai-writingSkill
- ci-cd-workflowsSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- decision-partnerSkill
- explain-itSkill
- frontend-engineeringSkill
- git-deliverySkill
- implement-planSkill
- jira-ticketsSkill
- readme-designSkill
- release-readinessSkill
- review-lenseSkill
- root-cause-debugSkill
- safe-migrationsSkill
- skill-authoringSkill
- technical-documentationSkill
- test-authoringSkill
- using-skillsSkill
- writing-clean-simple-codeSkill
- writing-optimized-sqlSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 165 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Read anti-ai-writing before drafting contracts, examples, or reports.
- Distinctive: line 30
Use existing naming and error conventions.
- Distinctive: line 35
Use types and schemas that distinguish valid variants without a bag of contradictory optional fields.
- Distinctive: line 45
Use stable machine-readable errors with actionable public messages and safe details.
- Distinctive: line 81
Use agent-planning for dependent multi-component work and writing-clean-simple-code for authorized implementation.
- Distinctive: line 88
Keep schemas, examples, and relevant documentation consistent with the final behavior.
- Distinctive: line 89
Use code-review for consequential contract review when available and authorized.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 165 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
API and Interface Design
Read anti-ai-writing before drafting contracts, examples, or reports. Inspect existing interfaces, consumers, schemas, transport, framework versions, and repository conventions. Verify protocol and library semantics against official documentation. Design-only requests do not authorize implementation.
1. Establish the consumer contract
Identify the caller's task, boundary owner, trusted inputs, supported consumers, and accepted requirements. Use decision-partner only for consequential unresolved choices. Before implementation, define the relevant parts of the contract:
- Data: inputs, outputs, required/optional fields, absent versus null semantics, defaults, units, identifiers, and constraints. Keep internal storage shapes and privileged fields out of public inputs unless required.
- Behavior: errors, side effects, ordering, atomicity, concurrency, cancellation, retry behavior, and compatibility.
Use existing naming and error conventions; do not standardize the entire repository as a side effect. Keep the contract proportional to the interface's risk and reach.
2. Define misuse and failure behavior
Use types and schemas that distinguish valid variants without a bag of contradictory optional fields. Validate at actual trust boundaries, including external responses, configuration, and persisted data whose invariants are not guaranteed. Static types do not validate runtime data. Avoid redundant checks inside established trusted paths.
Enforce authentication, object/action authorization, and tenant scope in effective reads and writes. Derive identity from trusted context, not caller-selected ownership. Prevent over-posting, unsafe URLs, injection, and private-field disclosure. Define bounded inputs, resource use, and pagination consistent with the product's needs.
Use stable machine-readable errors with actionable public messages and safe details. Distinguish validation, authorization, missing resources, conflicts, transient failures, and unknown outcomes. Follow the transport's semantics and established disclosure policy; do not expose raw internals or assume every endpoint uses identical status codes.
Apply only the relevant transport rules:
- For HTTP, preserve method, status, caching, conditional-request, and update semantics. Specify omission/null handling for partial updates and distinguish replacement from patching.
- For GraphQL, consider nullability, resolver authorization, query cost, and schema evolution.
- For events, specify delivery, ordering, schema, and replay contracts.
3. Define retries and collections
For retryable effects, define an intent-stable idempotency key, caller/tenant scope, payload mismatch handling, atomic claiming, in-flight responses, retention, and replay. Uniqueness alone does not ensure exactly-once external effects: account for crashes between the effect and result recording, downstream deduplication, and reconciliation of unknown outcomes. Do not retry an ambiguous non-idempotent operation blindly.
For collections, define filtering, maximum page size, stable ordering and tie-breakers, continuation validity, and behavior under concurrent inserts/deletes. Bind cursors to relevant query and scope without treating them as authorization. State partial results explicitly; counts and pagination metadata must not imply stronger consistency than the system provides.
4. Evolve and verify
Trace all supported producers and consumers, including generated clients, dynamic references, and deployed versions. Additive fields, enum values, and changed defaults can break strict consumers. Use safe-migrations for transitions requiring coexistence, deprecation, or breaking changes. Avoid inventing a new API version when compatible evolution satisfies the requirement.
Use agent-planning for dependent multi-component work and writing-clean-simple-code for authorized implementation. Use test-authoring for contract tests at real boundaries, including malformed inputs, authorization denial, tenant isolation, retry races, serialization, and compatibility as applicable. Verify actual consumer behavior rather than only mocks or schema validity.
Keep schemas, examples, and relevant documentation consistent with the final behavior. Use code-review for consequential contract review when available and authorized. Report decisions, actual verification, and unresolved consumer or execution limits. Publication and Git actions require applicable authorization.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

