agentleFS
yuanJewelyuanJewel/skills/cloud-api-integration/SKILL.md

cloud-api-integration

Skill2 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub

Design or test cloud provider HTTP/SDK client boundaries, pagination, rate-limit retries, async operation state and resource normalisation. Use for wrapping an established API set and local synthetic verification; does not perform real cloud discovery, tests or operations, and does not automatically replace existing direct calls with an SDK.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    Run authorised local verification and record whether it was real HTTP/SDK or a pure transport model.

    line 24

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

Cloud API integration method

Implement only the API surface the project needs; follow the existing direct-HTTP or SDK pattern and separate transport, authentication, protocol mapping and domain merging. A simulated success does not prove real cloud permissions, quotas or network behaviour.

Inputs and missing items

Take the public API/SDK version and the actual call inventory, the pagination/error/idempotency and final-state contracts, domain identity/field mapping, allowed local endpoint/transport injection, synthetic auth and seeds, and request/page/time budgets. Without the exact API version, do not guess fields/signatures; without transport injection, design an isolation interface first instead of filling the gap with the default credential chain.

A project's direct HTTP calls may stay as they are. For an existing SDK, verify whether construction can disable environment/file/metadata credentials and inject fake auth and a controlled transport. Missing real credentials is not a reason to block local tests. An explicitly missing API item blocks only the related calls; existing normalisation/pagination synthetic tests can continue.

Method

  1. Per Client boundary, pin method/endpoint/version, authentication and response mapping, and verify that every request goes only through the synthetic transport; forbid any metadata or real cloud fallback.
  2. Per Pagination, retries and polling, define completion criteria, loops/budgets/partial failure, bounded retries and cancellation; when a write response is unknown, reconcile first.
  3. Per Provider normalisation, align on provider x account x region x kind x immutable ID. Before a complete snapshot, no disappearance judgments; manual resources and existing relationships are protected.
  4. Use the provider contract to list versions, fields, identity, errors/final states and the scope of proof; use the synthetic provider to build pages/failures/duplicates and cancellation. It may be combined with the external dependency stub method of external-dependency-simulation; no need to install a whole new tool set.
  5. Run authorised local verification and record whether it was real HTTP/SDK or a pure transport model. List unknown fields, unknown states, partial failures and unverified real behaviour explicitly; do not call one HTTP 200 a complete synchronisation.

Failure, resources and recovery

  • Failure classification: distinguish authentication/permission, parameter, rate limit, transport, business failure, cancellation and unknown async state; do not retry everything or downgrade everything to success.
  • Completeness: maintain completeness state independently for each account/region/resource kind; a failed scope does not release existing resources.
  • Save on interruption: save request/operation identity, pages fetched, continuation token, budget and in-flight work.
  • Re-read: token expired or snapshot consistency cannot be guaranteed -> re-read that scope; do not stitch together pages from different times and call it complete.

Resource guidance: mechanical response mapping uses low/low; pagination stalls, idempotency, cross-region identity, permissions and async state use normal/high. Grade words map to actual execution configuration through the project resource mapping. Allocate parallelism by provider quotas, connections/pages, and host limits such as machine and executor concurrency quotas (given by project configuration); do not bypass rate limits with more workers.

Positive example: an empty page with a nextToken keeps going; if the second page fails, that scope is not aligned and nothing is deleted. Counter example: the SDK cannot find fake credentials and reads the environment or metadata; overwriting a same-named manual resource by display name.

Wrap-up cleanup: synthetic provider processes, ports, recorded responses and local caches are reclaimed after verification ends. Follow the local resource cleanup rule of task-implementation: register identity on creation, reclaim only objects registered this run at wrap-up, write evidence to keep and failed cleanup items into the receipt, and use no global cleanup commands.

Sources

  1. Pinned sources: EC11 api-connector-builder, EC06 api-design; the Azure async summary is checked against the ARM official documentation (read 2026-10-09); specific providers/APIs follow the input version.
  2. From EC11, adopted existing-pattern-first, narrow interfaces, and the transport/mapping/registration/test loop; from EC06, the method/response/error, pagination and compatibility topics. Cloud identity, signing, retry/polling and completeness methods are own-authored for this package, with no full attribution for idempotency specifics. Dropped the mandatory reading of a fixed number of similar components. After adding a provider or version, re-verify the actual call contract and synthetic counter examples; do not expand permissions based on historical collection success.
  3. License: shipped with the package as LICENSE-EC.txt (EC, MIT); library-wide third-party summary in the root THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md. Copy the license file along when copying this package alone.

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.