api-design
Skill118 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub
This skill should be used when the user needs to "design the API", do "endpoint design", pin down a "request/response shape", choose a "pagination" strategy (cursor vs offset), add an "idempotency key" to a write, plan "API versioning", an "error contract", or pick between "REST vs gRPC vs GraphQL" or "WebSocket vs polling". Use it whenever a design has reached the interface — the concrete request, response, primary access path, and how clients page, retry, and version — even if the user only said "the boxes talk to each other".
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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- architecture-diagramSkill
- back-of-the-envelopeSkill
- blob-storeSkill
- cachingSkill
- consistency-coordinationSkill
- content-deliverySkill
- data-storageSkill
- distributed-loggingSkill
- distributed-searchSkill
- dnsSkill
- load-balancingSkill
- messaging-streamingSkill
- observabilitySkill
- requirements-scopingSkill
- resilience-failureSkill
- scaling-evolutionSkill
- sequencerSkill
- service-decompositionSkill
- sharded-countersSkill
- system-designSkill
- task-schedulingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 165 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 22
Before requirements and scale are pinned — the protocol choice depends on read/write ratio and latency target, not taste (→ …
- Distinctive: line 98
Unbounded responses: No default page size, no max payload, or a GraphQL query that fans out → one request exhausts memory/CPU.
- Distinctive: line 116
Pick the protocol and pagination from the trade-off table: Default to REST/JSON; escalate to gRPC (internal latency/typing), GraphQL (many …
- Distinctive: line 119
Default pagination to cursor.
- Distinctive: line 130
Pick a provider: Keep the generic recipe unless the user names a cloud, then map to its managed gateway (see *Choosing a provider*).
- Distinctive: line 139
Default to REST/JSON and cursor pagination.
- Distinctive: line 143
Keep one stable error envelope (code, message, request_id, retryable) across every endpoint.
- Distinctive: line 147
Use offset pagination on growing or mutating sets — deep offsets scan the store.
- Distinctive: line 149
Leave responses unbounded (no default page size, no max payload).
- Very specific: line 200
Default to the generic recipe above.
“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 Design
Define the contract between clients and a service: the exact request and response shapes, how callers page through data, how retried writes stay safe, how errors are reported, and how the contract evolves. Get this vague and the rest of the diagram is guesswork (GUIDE #8) — a "NoSQL box" or "user service" solves nothing until you can write the request, the response, and the key it hits.
When to reach for this
The design has named services and a datastore, and you now need the interface: what a client sends, what it gets back, how it fetches the next page, how it retries a payment without double-charging, and how a v1 client survives a v2 deploy. Reach here the moment someone says "fetch the feed" or "store the post" without a shape.
When NOT to
Before requirements and scale are pinned — the protocol choice depends on
read/write ratio and latency target, not taste (→ requirements-scoping,
back-of-the-envelope). Don't reach for gRPC, GraphQL, or streaming because they
sound modern; a plain REST/JSON endpoint is the cheapest contract that meets most
constraints, and naming a fancier protocol you don't need is a YAGNI red flag.
Internal data-access keys and partition design live in data-storage; this skill
designs the external contract that mirrors them.
Clarify first
- Call shape — request/response (CRUD), bidirectional/real-time, or one request → many results (streaming)? This picks the protocol.
- Read/write ratio and result-set size — drives pagination and whether reads
need their own optimized path (→
back-of-the-envelope). - Retry safety — can a write be safely repeated? Which operations are naturally idempotent (PUT/DELETE) vs not (POST that creates/charges)?
- Client diversity & churn — public third parties (slow to upgrade, need strict versioning) vs your own apps (ship together)?
- Latency & payload budget — mobile/high-latency links favor compact binary and fewer round trips; browsers favor cacheable HTTP.
The options
Protocol / style (pick per call shape)
- REST over HTTP/JSON — resource CRUD over standard verbs. Use as the default for public, cacheable, browser-friendly APIs.
- RPC / gRPC (HTTP/2, protobuf) — typed method calls, compact binary, streaming. Use for internal service-to-service traffic where latency and schema contracts matter.
- GraphQL — client specifies exactly the fields it wants in one query. Use when many clients need different shapes of the same graph and over/under-fetching on REST hurts.
- WebSocket / SSE (streaming) — persistent server→client push. Use when the server must push updates (chat, presence, live feeds) — see the polling tier below.
- Webhooks — server calls the client's URL on an event. Use for async, third-party event delivery.
Server-push tier (when clients need fresh data)
- Polling → long-polling → SSE → WebSocket, in increasing efficiency for push and increasing connection cost. Start at polling; escalate only when a number (update frequency, fanout) forces it.
Pagination
- Cursor (keyset) — opaque token over a stable sort key. Default for large or changing datasets.
- Offset/limit —
?offset=40&limit=20. Use only for small, mostly-static, jump-to-page lists.
Idempotency — client sends an Idempotency-Key on unsafe writes; the server
dedupes retries. This skill owns the key contract (see Interface sketch).
Versioning — URI (/v2/...), header (Accept: application/vnd.x.v2+json), or
additive/never-break. Prefer additive; reserve a new version for breaking changes.
Trade-offs
| Option | What it solves | What it worsens | Change it when |
| REST/JSON | Universal, cacheable, simple, tooling everywhere | Over/under-fetch; chatty for graphs; weak typing | Field-shaping pain → GraphQL; internal latency → gRPC |
| gRPC/RPC | Compact, typed, fast, native streaming | Not browser-native; needs proxy; opaque to HTTP caches | Public/browser clients need it → REST gateway |
| GraphQL | One round trip, client picks fields | Caching/rate-limiting hard; expensive queries (N+1); server complexity | Few fixed shapes (REST simpler) or query cost unbounded |
| WebSocket/SSE | True server push, low-latency updates | Stateful connections, harder to scale/LB, reconnection logic | Updates are infrequent → long-poll; one-way only → SSE |
| Cursor pagination | Stable under inserts; O(1) per page at any depth | Opaque token; no random page jump; needs sort key | Users must jump to page N of a static set → offset |
| Offset pagination | Trivial; arbitrary page jumps | Drift/dupes on insert; deep offsets scan & slow | Set grows or mutates → cursor |
| Idempotency keys | Safe retries; no double-charge | Server must store keys + dedupe; key TTL/scope to define | Op is naturally idempotent (PUT/DELETE) → may skip |
| URI versioning | Explicit, cache/log-visible, easy to route | Version sprawl; clients pinned forever | Changes are additive → no new version needed |
Behavior under stress
The contract decides how badly a client amplifies an incident.
- Retry storms. A timed-out write that isn't idempotent gets retried and may
double-execute; clients retrying in lockstep stampede a recovering service.
Idempotency keys make retries safe; the backoff/jitter that paces them is owned
by
resilience-failure. Surface429+Retry-Afterso well-behaved clients slow down. - Deep pagination. Offset pagination at large offsets forces the store to scan and discard rows — a cheap-looking endpoint becomes a full-table scan under a crawler. Cursor pagination keeps every page O(page-size).
- Unbounded responses. No default page size, no max payload, or a GraphQL query that fans out → one request exhausts memory/CPU. Cap page size, depth, and complexity at the contract.
- Connection exhaustion. WebSocket/SSE hold a connection per client; a reconnect storm after a deploy can exhaust file descriptors and load-balancer slots. Plan reconnect with jitter and connection limits.
- Versioning breakage. A non-additive change to a shared shape breaks every client at once — the loudest self-inflicted outage. Make changes additive; deprecate behind a version.
Monitor: error-rate by status class (4xx vs 5xx), p99 latency per endpoint, retry/idempotency-replay rate, page-depth distribution, open connection count, and per-version traffic (to know when an old version can be retired).
How to apply
- Clarify the inputs. Pin call shape, read/write ratio, result-set size, retry safety, client diversity, and latency/payload budget (see Clarify first). No contract before these are known.
- Pick the protocol and pagination from the trade-off table. Default to REST/JSON; escalate to gRPC (internal latency/typing), GraphQL (many field shapes), or a push tier (server must push) only when an input forces it. Default pagination to cursor; reserve offset for small, static, jump-to-page sets.
- Set the key knobs. Choose idempotent verbs by safety (GET/PUT/DELETE safe
to retry, POST not), define the
Idempotency-Keycontract and its TTL, fix a stable error envelope, and pick a versioning policy (additive by default). - Stress-test the contract. Cap default and max page size, GraphQL
depth/complexity, and payload size; plan reconnect-with-jitter and connection
limits for push; surface
429+Retry-After. Confirm a v1 client survives a v2 deploy. - Size it with numbers. Estimate requests/s per endpoint, response size,
pages-per-session, and update-frequency × fanout; use these to confirm the
protocol and poll-vs-push choice (→
back-of-the-envelope). - Pick a provider. Keep the generic recipe unless the user names a cloud, then map to its managed gateway (see Choosing a provider).
- Show the trade-off in the answer — give a
Decision | Solves | Worsens | Change it when…table with one row per choice you made here (e.g. the option, its store, its failure policy); the last column is a concrete trigger (a number or observable signal). Then name what breaks first.
Dos and don'ts
Do
- Default to REST/JSON and cursor pagination; escalate only when a number forces it.
- Choose verbs by retry safety so retries are correct by construction.
- Require an
Idempotency-Keyon every non-idempotent write and bound its TTL. - Cap page size, query depth/complexity, and payload so worst-case cost is bounded.
- Keep one stable error envelope (code, message, request_id, retryable) across every endpoint.
Don't
- Reach for gRPC, GraphQL, or streaming because they sound modern (YAGNI red flag).
- Use offset pagination on growing or mutating sets — deep offsets scan the store.
- Ship a non-additive change to a shared shape without a new version.
- Leave responses unbounded (no default page size, no max payload).
- Re-teach retries/backoff or sharding here — link to
resilience-failure/data-storage.
Numbers that matter
Estimate before choosing: requests/s per endpoint, average and max response size,
page size × pages-per-session (drives read load), and update frequency × fanout
(decides poll vs push). A few rules of thumb that flip a decision: a binary
protocol (protobuf) commonly cuts payload several-fold over JSON, and compression
helps again before the wire — both matter most on mobile/high-latency links where
round trips dominate. Polling at interval T for N clients is N/T requests/s
of mostly-empty answers; once that approaches the push tier's connection budget,
switch to SSE/WebSocket. Cap page size (and GraphQL depth/complexity) so worst-case
response cost is bounded, and keep an idempotency key's stored window bounded
(e.g. 24h) so the dedupe table doesn't grow without limit. For the canonical
latency/QPS/payload reference figures, go to back-of-the-envelope — don't restate
its tables here.
Interface sketch
Make the contract concrete. A read with cursor pagination and an error envelope:
GET /v1/users/{id}/posts?limit=20&cursor=eyJ0cyI6MTciLCJpZCI6Ijk5In0
200 OK
{ "data": [ { "id": "p_881", "created_at": "...", "text": "..." } ],
"next_cursor": "eyJ0cyI6...", // null when no more pages
"has_more": true }
# error envelope — stable shape across every endpoint
4xx/5xx
{ "error": { "code": "rate_limited", "message": "…", "request_id": "req_…",
"retryable": true } }An idempotent write (this skill's owned contract):
POST /v1/payments
Idempotency-Key: 9f1c-… (client-generated UUID, unique per logical operation)
{ "amount": 4200, "currency": "usd", "source": "card_…" }
# Server: first request with a key → execute, store (key → response) for a TTL.
# Retry with same key → return the stored response, do NOT re-execute.
# Same key + different body → 422 (key reuse conflict).Mirror the response shape to the access pattern: cursor encodes the partition/sort
key the store pages on (PK/SK design is owned by data-storage). Pick verbs by
safety — GET (safe), PUT/DELETE (idempotent), POST (not), so retries are correct
by construction.
Choosing a provider
Default to the generic recipe above. If the user names a cloud, read
references/providers/<provider>.md for the managed-service mapping,
quotas/limits, and provider-specific trade-offs. If no file exists for that
provider, the generic recipe is the answer.
Diagram
To visualize the request/response path, the cursor-paging loop, or an
idempotent-retry sequence (client → gateway → service → store, with the replay
branch), use the in-plugin architecture-diagram skill — do not embed Mermaid
here. A one-line ASCII sketch inline is fine for quick reasoning.
Related building blocks
data-storage— depends on it: the request/response and cursor shapes mirror its primary key and access patterns (sharding/partitioning lives there); design them together.resilience-failure— pairs with it: it owns retries/backoff/jitter, timeouts, and rate limiting, while idempotency keys (owned here) are what make those retries safe.consistency-coordination— pairs with it when a retried or concurrent write must not violate an invariant; CAP/quorum theory lives there.messaging-streaming— alternative to synchronous request/response when the contract is async events or webhooks.system-design— feeds into this: the orchestrator routes here at the interface step.
References
references/deep-dive.md— protocol mechanics (HTTP verbs/status discipline, gRPC streaming modes, GraphQL query-cost limits), cursor-token construction, the full idempotency-key state machine, versioning/deprecation strategy, and error-contract design. Read when designing the contract in detail.references/providers/{generic,aws,azure,gcp}.md— API-gateway / managed-endpoint mappings, limits that change a decision, and pitfalls per environment.
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.

