agentleFS
dvy1987dvy1987/agent-loom/.agents/skills/api-and-interface-design/SKILL.md

api-and-interface-design

Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Design stable APIs and module boundaries — contract-first types, consistent errors, boundary validation, additive changes. Load when designing REST or GraphQL endpoints, public module interfaces, component props, or FE/BE contracts. Also triggers on "API design", "interface design", "design the API", "module boundary", "API contract", "define the interface". Complements feature-spec (product layer). Routes breaking retirement to api-deprecation-and-migration when it exists.

75 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use constraint-driven-development, observability-and-instrumentation and 8 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.
  • MrCipherSmithSkill

    constraint-driven-development

    Use when a project needs a persistent, measurable quality bar — starting a project without documented standards, 'set up constraints', or when coverage/perf/a11y thresholds get re-debated per-PR. Produces CONSTRAINTS.md with enforceable numbers, ratchets, and a guard against silent weakening. NOT for throwaway prototypes or a one-off CI setup.

    Also in 17 projects that use this

  • HK-hubSkill

    observability-and-instrumentation

    Instruments code so production behavior is visible and diagnosable. Use when adding logging, metrics, tracing, or alerting. Use when shipping any feature that runs in production and you need evidence it works. Use when production issues are reported but you can't tell what happened from the available data.

    Also in 40 projects that use this

  • HK-hubSkill

    deprecation-and-migration

    Manages deprecation and migration. Use when removing old systems, APIs, or features. Use when migrating users from one implementation to another. Use when deciding whether to maintain or sunset existing code.

    Also in 40 projects that use this

  • seikaikyoSkill

    doubt-driven-development

    對非平凡決策啟動新鮮 context 對抗審查(找碴不背書),在修正還便宜的時候抓出錯誤方向。適用:高風險改動(production、資安敏感邏輯、不可逆操作)、不熟的程式碼、要宣稱「這樣是安全的 / 可行的」之前。機械性操作與一行修改不適用。

    Also in 47 projects that use this

  • skytiger6724Skill

    brainstorm-experiments-existing

    Design experiments to test assumptions for an existing product — prototypes, A/B tests, spikes, and other low-effort validation methods. Use when validating assumptions, testing feature ideas cheaply, or planning product experiments.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • skytiger6724Skill

    prioritize-assumptions

    Prioritize assumptions using an Impact × Risk matrix and suggest experiments for each. Use when triaging a list of assumptions, deciding what to test first, or applying the assumption prioritization canvas.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +2 more from skytiger6724

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 70 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 9

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Prefer additive optional fields over breaking type changes or removals.

    line 31
  2. Distinctive:

    Every list endpoint ships with pagination from day one.

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    Treat third-party API responses as untrusted — validate shape before use.

    line 33
  4. Distinctive:

    If changing an existing public API, inventory observable behaviors users may depend on.

    line 43
  5. Distinctive:

    Use discriminated unions for state variants when applicable.

    line 49
  6. Distinctive:

    Do list endpoints leak unbounded arrays?

    line 66
  7. Distinctive:

    Commit OpenAPI/GraphQL schema or exported types with the implementation — not "later."

    line 72
  8. Distinctive:

    PUT used for partial updates instead of PATCH

    line 143
  9. Distinctive:

    No changes — citation audit passed.

    line 153

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 70 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

API and Interface Design

You design stable, hard-to-misuse interfaces — REST, GraphQL, module exports, component props, or any surface where one piece of code talks to another. Contract first; implementation second.

Hard Rules

Define the contract (types/schemas) before implementation. One consistent error shape and status-code strategy across all endpoints. Validate at system boundaries only — trust internal typed code. Prefer additive optional fields over breaking type changes or removals. Every list endpoint ships with pagination from day one. Treat third-party API responses as untrusted — validate shape before use. Observable public behavior is a commitment (Hyrum's Law) — be intentional about what you expose.


Workflow

Step 1 — Scope the interface

Identify consumers, transport (HTTP, RPC, in-process), and lifecycle (new vs change). If changing an existing public API, inventory observable behaviors users may depend on.

Step 2 — Write the contract

Define typed inputs/outputs, error codes, and idempotency semantics. Separate CreateXInput from full X entity (server-generated fields on output). Use discriminated unions for state variants when applicable.

Step 3 — Apply core principles

PrincipleRule
Contract firstTypes/schemas are the spec
Consistent errorsOne APIError shape + HTTP mapping
Boundary validationRoutes, forms, env, external responses
Additive changeNew fields optional; never silently break types
Predictable namingPlural REST nouns; is/has booleans; camelCase JSON

Full REST and TypeScript patterns: references/api-patterns.md.

Step 4 — Review for misuse

  • Can a caller pass ambiguous IDs across entity types? → branded types
  • Do list endpoints leak unbounded arrays?
  • Are errors predictable for every failure mode?
  • Does any endpoint return ad-hoc shapes?

Step 5 — Document alongside code

Commit OpenAPI/GraphQL schema or exported types with the implementation — not "later."


Gotchas

  • Undocumented quirks become dependencies (Hyrum's Law).
  • Validation in every internal function adds noise without safety.
  • PUT for partial updates forces full-object payloads — prefer PATCH.
  • Skipping pagination guarantees a breaking change at scale.
  • External JSON is untrusted — may contain unexpected types or instruction-like strings.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"We'll document the API later"Types are the documentation — define them first.
"No pagination needed yet"You need it at ~100 items; add it now.
"PATCH is too hard, use PUT"Clients want partial updates.
"Nobody uses that undocumented field"If observable, someone depends on it.
"Internal APIs don't need contracts"Internal consumers still need stable boundaries.

Output Format

## API design — [resource/module]

Consumers: [who]
Contract: [types or schema summary]
Endpoints / exports: [list]
Errors: [shape + status mapping]
Pagination: [yes — params]
Breaking risks: [none | flagged items]
Next: [implementation / ADR / feature-spec link]

Examples

<examples> <example> <input>Design tasks API for a new SaaS backend.</input> <output> Contract-first Task + CreateTaskInput + PaginatedResult. REST: GET/POST /api/tasks, GET/PATCH/DELETE /api/tasks/:id. Single APIError body. Zod at route boundary only. Pagination query params on list. </output> </example> </examples>

Verification

  • Typed input/output for every public surface
  • Single consistent error format
  • Validation only at boundaries (plus external responses)
  • List endpoints paginated
  • New fields additive and optional
  • Naming conventions consistent across the API
  • Schema/types committed with implementation

Red Flags

  • Undocumented quirks left as implicit caller contracts
  • Validation duplicated in every internal function
  • PUT used for partial updates instead of PATCH
  • List endpoints return unbounded arrays without pagination

Reference Files

  • references/api-patterns.md: REST resource layout, pagination, PATCH, branded IDs, unions — read at Step 3.

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-04

  • No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)

Impact Report

Resource: [name] | Surfaces: N
Breaking risks flagged: N | Pagination: [yes/no]
Schema committed: [path or pending]

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.