api-design-principles

Master REST and GraphQL API design principles to build intuitive, scalable, and maintainable APIs that delight developers and stand the test of time.

Quality

22%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/antigravity-api-design-principles/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

22%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description reads more like a marketing tagline or course title than a functional skill description. It lacks concrete actions, explicit trigger conditions, and uses aspirational fluff ('delight developers', 'stand the test of time') instead of specifying what the skill actually does. The mention of REST and GraphQL provides some keyword value but is insufficient to make this a useful skill selector.

Suggestions

Replace aspirational language with concrete actions, e.g., 'Designs REST endpoints, defines GraphQL schemas, structures request/response payloads, applies versioning strategies, and generates OpenAPI/Swagger specifications.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about API design, REST endpoints, GraphQL schemas, HTTP methods, API versioning, or OpenAPI specs.'

Remove marketing fluff like 'delight developers' and 'stand the test of time' — these add no selection value and reduce clarity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague, aspirational language like 'intuitive, scalable, and maintainable' and 'delight developers' without listing any concrete actions. There are no specific capabilities such as 'design endpoints', 'define schemas', 'generate OpenAPI specs', etc.	1 / 3
Completeness	The description vaguely addresses 'what' (API design principles) but provides no 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance. There is no 'Use when...' or equivalent, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is too vague to merit even a 2.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some relevant keywords like 'REST', 'GraphQL', and 'API design' that users might naturally say. However, it misses common variations like 'endpoints', 'routes', 'schema', 'OpenAPI', 'swagger', 'HTTP methods', or 'API documentation'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Mentioning both REST and GraphQL provides some specificity, but the broad framing around 'API design principles' could overlap with skills related to backend development, web services, or general software architecture.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Implementation

22%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is essentially a stub that defers all substantive content to a referenced file (`resources/implementation-playbook.md`) that doesn't exist in the bundle. The four instructions are too abstract to be actionable — they read like chapter headings rather than executable guidance. The skill would benefit enormously from concrete examples, specific patterns, and actual API design templates inline or in provided bundle files.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable examples for at least one REST and one GraphQL API design scenario (e.g., a sample resource model, endpoint naming, error response schema).

Replace the vague four-step instructions with specific, actionable guidance — e.g., 'Name resources as plural nouns: /users, /orders. Use HTTP methods for actions: GET /users/{id}, POST /users'.

Either include the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` in the bundle or inline the essential patterns, checklists, and templates directly in the SKILL.md.

Add a validation step with concrete criteria — e.g., 'Review checklist: Are all endpoints using consistent naming? Do error responses follow RFC 7807? Is pagination implemented for list endpoints?'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' sections are somewhat verbose and contain guidance Claude could infer. The Limitations section is boilerplate. However, the core instructions are brief.	2 / 3
Actionability	The instructions are extremely vague and abstract — 'Define consumers, use cases, and constraints' and 'Choose API style and model resources or types' provide no concrete examples, code snippets, schemas, or specific commands. The skill describes rather than instructs.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The four-step workflow is too high-level to be useful — each step is a vague directive with no specifics, no validation checkpoints, no examples of what good output looks like, and no feedback loops. The entire actionable content is deferred to a referenced file that doesn't exist in the bundle.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed content, which is a reasonable structure, but that file is not provided in the bundle. The SKILL.md itself is too thin — it's essentially an empty shell pointing to a missing file, so the progressive disclosure doesn't actually function.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: boisenoise/skills-collections
Commit: e41e34a

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.