api-design

name

api-design

description

Stable consumer-facing API and interface design patterns. Use when designing REST endpoints, cross-team boundaries, or any externally consumed or versioned service contract. Covers contract-first development, error semantics (RFC 9457), REST conventions, pagination, idempotency, rate limiting, and backward compatibility. For an in-process feature or module's coherent responsibility and interface depth, use codebase-design. For TypeScript type patterns and trust-boundary validation, see typescript-strict.

API and Interface Design

Use this skill for consumer compatibility and protocol semantics. For an in-process module's responsibility, full caller burden, information hiding, and depth, load codebase-design; use both when an internal module also exposes a public or cross-team contract. Use evaluate-existing-solutions only when a material gateway, framework, SDK, provider, or protocol-implementation choice remains unresolved; API semantics and compatibility stay here.

For TypeScript type patterns (branded types, discriminated unions, schema-first), see the typescript-strict skill. For immutability patterns, see the functional skill. For testing API behavior, see the testing skill. For OAuth 2.0 or OpenID Connect, load the secure-oauth-oidc skill rather than treating authentication as an ordinary API-key decision. For browser-facing BFF entry points — public/protected access classification, session cookies, CSRF/Origin/Fetch Metadata policy, protected SSE/WebSocket registration, and endpoint-protection enforcement — load the bff-entry-points skill; error shape and REST semantics stay here. For the BFF pattern itself (adoption, granularity, aggregation, upstream identity), load bff-design — a single-consumer BFF deployed in lockstep with its frontend legitimately relaxes the versioning discipline this skill mandates for externally consumed contracts.

Supporting resources are in the resources/ directory. Load them on demand:

Resource	Load when...
problem-details.md	Implementing RFC 9457 error responses — member semantics, single-error and validation-error JSON examples, extension members, §5 security guidance
api-evolution.md	Versioning strategies and deprecation patterns
api-security.md	Securing the API boundary
auth-security.md	JWT BCP security and routing to the dedicated OAuth/OIDC skill
http-fundamentals.md	HTTP protocol fundamentals — caching directives, content negotiation, browser security, status codes, header design
source-notes.md	Reviewing provenance, the immutable audit baseline, license scope, and local departures

When to Use

• Designing new API endpoints
• Defining contracts between teams or independently released consumers
• Changing existing public interfaces
• Establishing database schema that informs API shape

Core Principles

Hyrum's Law

With a sufficient number of users of an API, all observable behaviors of your system will be depended on by somebody, regardless of what you promise in the contract.

Every public behavior — including undocumented quirks, error message text, timing, and ordering — becomes a de facto contract once users depend on it.

• Be intentional about what you expose. Every observable behavior is a potential commitment.
• Don't leak implementation details. If users can observe it, they will depend on it.
• Plan for deprecation at design time. Removing things users depend on always costs more than expected.
• Tests are not enough. Even with perfect contract tests, Hyrum's Law means "safe" changes can break real users who depend on undocumented behavior.

The One-Version Rule

Avoid forcing consumers to choose between multiple versions of the same dependency or API. Diamond dependency problems arise when different consumers need different versions of the same thing. Design for a world where only one version exists at a time — extend rather than fork.

Contract First

Define the interface before implementing it. The contract is the spec — implementation follows.

type TaskAPI = {
  readonly createTask: (input: CreateTaskInput) => Promise<Task>;
  readonly listTasks: (params: ListTasksParams) => Promise<PaginatedResult<Task>>;
  readonly getTask: (id: TaskId) => Promise<Task>;
  readonly updateTask: (id: TaskId, input: UpdateTaskInput) => Promise<Task>;
  readonly deleteTask: (id: TaskId) => Promise<void>;
};

This aligns with TDD: define the contract (what you want), write tests against it, then implement.

Prefer Addition Over Modification

Extend interfaces without breaking existing consumers:

type CreateTaskInput = {
  readonly title: string;
  readonly description?: string;
  readonly priority?: 'low' | 'medium' | 'high';  // Added later, optional
  readonly labels?: ReadonlyArray<string>;           // Added later, optional
};

What breaks backward compatibility:

• Removing fields
• Changing field types
• Making optional fields required
• Changing enum values

What preserves backward compatibility:

• Adding new optional fields
• Adding new enum values (if consumers handle unknown values)
• Adding new endpoints

Consistent Error Semantics

Pick one error strategy and use it everywhere. Don't mix patterns where some endpoints throw, others return null, and others return { error }.

Choosing an Error Format

Within one versioned API contract, use one documented error shape unless a protocol-specific endpoint requires another. Consistency matters more than which compatible format you choose.

For public APIs with external consumers, use RFC 9457 (Problem Details). It's the industry standard, machine-readable, and what third-party developers expect. Use application/problem+json as the Content-Type.

For internal APIs with a single frontend, a simpler consistent shape is a valid choice. The minimum viable error response needs: a machine-readable error code, an optional human-readable message, and the correct HTTP status code. This is less ceremony than RFC 9457 while still being consistent and actionable.

// Simpler shape — sufficient for internal APIs
type ApiError = {
  readonly error: string;                          // Machine-readable code (UPPER_SNAKE_CASE)
  readonly message?: string;                       // Human-readable description
  readonly fieldErrors?: Record<string, string>;   // For validation errors
};

If you start with a simpler format, design it so it can evolve toward RFC 9457 later (e.g., error maps to title, message maps to detail). Don't paint yourself into a corner.

RFC 9457 (Problem Details for HTTP APIs)

The standard format for machine-readable API errors for public APIs. Use application/problem+json as the Content-Type. Standard members: type (URI identifying the error type), title (stable, human-readable summary), status (must match the actual HTTP status), detail (occurrence-specific explanation), instance (optional occurrence URI). Extension members are allowed — clients must ignore extensions they don't recognize.

Errors should be actionable: the consumer should know what went wrong, why, and what to do about it. Error responses are not a debugging tool — never expose stack traces, internal paths, or implementation details.

Include a correlation identifier (the trace ID, or an opaque reference to it) as an extension member or via instance, so a user-reported error joins to its trace and canonical log event — see the observability skill. The trace ID reveals nothing internal; it is a lookup key, not a detail leak.

See resources/problem-details.md for full member semantics, single-error and validation-error JSON examples, extension member rules, when NOT to use Problem Details, and RFC 9457 §5 security guidance.

HTTP Status Code Mapping

Status	Meaning	When to use
400	Bad Request	Client sent malformed data
401	Unauthorized	Not authenticated
403	Forbidden	Authenticated but not authorized
404	Not Found	Resource doesn't exist
409	Conflict	Duplicate, version mismatch
422	Unprocessable Content	Validation failed (semantically invalid)
429	Too Many Requests	Rate limit exceeded; include Retry-After when a meaningful retry time is known
500	Internal Server Error	Server error (never expose internal details)

Validation at API Boundaries

Validate untrusted representation and endpoint-schema input where it enters the system, then pass the derived type through internal code. This does not replace domain smart constructors or transition checks: invariant enforcement remains with the model that owns the value. See typescript-strict and domain-driven-design.

Return 400 when the representation itself cannot be parsed (for example malformed JSON). Once parsing succeeds, return 422 when the value fails the endpoint schema or business validation. Pick and document a different house mapping only when every example, error translator, and consumer uses it consistently.

app.post('/api/tasks', async (req, res) => {
  const result = CreateTaskSchema.safeParse(req.body);
  if (!result.success) {
    return res.status(422).json({
      type: 'https://api.example.com/problems/validation-error',
      title: 'Validation Error',
      status: 422,
      detail: 'Invalid task data',
      errors: result.error.flatten(),
    });
  }

  const task = await taskService.create(result.data);
  return res.status(201).json(task);
});

Third-party API responses are untrusted data — always validate their shape and content before use.

Idempotency

Network failures happen. Clients retry. Without idempotency, retries create duplicate charges, duplicate orders, duplicate records.

HTTP Method Idempotency

Method	Safe	Idempotent	Notes
GET	Yes	Yes	Read-only requested semantics; incidental logging/metrics are allowed
PUT	No	Yes	Same request has the same intended effect; response status/body may differ
DELETE	No	Yes	Deleting twice = same outcome
POST	No	No	Needs explicit idempotency handling
PATCH	No	Not guaranteed	Depends on implementation

Idempotency Keys for POST

For non-idempotent operations (especially those involving money, orders, or state changes), use client-provided idempotency keys:

app.post('/api/payments', async (req, res) => {
  const rawIdempotencyKey = req.headers['idempotency-key'];
  const idempotencyKey =
    typeof rawIdempotencyKey === 'string' &&
    /^[\x21-\x7e]{1,128}$/.test(rawIdempotencyKey)
      ? rawIdempotencyKey
      : undefined;
  if (!idempotencyKey) {
    return res.status(400).json({
      type: 'https://api.example.com/problems/invalid-idempotency-key',
      title: 'Invalid Idempotency Key',
      status: 400,
      detail: 'POST /api/payments requires one visible-ASCII Idempotency-Key of at most 128 characters',
    });
  }

  const result = CreatePaymentSchema.safeParse(req.body);
  if (!result.success) {
    return res.status(422).json(toValidationProblem(result.error));
  }

  const scope = req.user.id;
  const fingerprint = stableHash(result.data);
  const claim = await idempotencyStore.claim({
    scope,
    : idempotencyKey,
    fingerprint,
  });

   (claim. === ) {
     res.().(());
  }
   (claim. === ) {
     res.(claim..).(claim..);
  }
   (claim. === ) {
    res.(, );
     res.().(());
  }

  
  
  
   payment =  paymentService.({
    : claim.,
    : result.,
  });
   idempotencyStore.(claim., { : , : payment });

   res.().(payment);
});

Design principles:

• Keys should be scoped to the API key / authenticated user
• Choose response-cache and claim retention from the documented maximum client retry/reconciliation window and effect risk; 24 hours is not a universal rule
• Keep a durable operation identity (and fingerprint or tombstone) after cached response eviction, or return an explicit expired/unknown outcome until non-duplication can be established — never silently treat a risky reused key as a fresh operation
• If parameters differ on retry with the same key, return an error
• Claim a key atomically; a separate read-then-create sequence is race-prone
• Coordinate the business effect with the claim through one transaction or a durable downstream operation ID
• For external payments, persist and reconcile the provider payment/intent ID; bound any request-idempotency-key retry to the provider's documented retention
• Represent in-progress claims explicitly and define retry/recovery for a worker that fails after claiming
• Design for "at-least-once" delivery — assume every request might be sent multiple times

Making DELETE Idempotent

DELETE must have an idempotent effect: repeating it does not delete anything else or create a second side effect. The repeated response may remain 204, or it may be 404 when absence is meaningful to clients. Choose and document one contract:

app.delete('/api/tasks/:id', async (req, res) => {
  const deleted = await taskService.delete(req.params.id);
  // This API deliberately treats already-absent as success.
  return res.status(204).send();
});

Rate Limiting

When an API exposes a quota policy, communicate the applicable policy and remaining state consistently on responses where that information is useful to clients. Do not invent quota headers for endpoints without such a policy.

Standard Headers (IETF draft — not yet an RFC)

The IETF standardization effort is draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers (version 11, May 2026 — still an active working group draft). Current drafts define two structured fields:

RateLimit-Policy: "hour";q=1000;w=3600   # Policy: quota of 1000 per 3600s window
RateLimit: "hour";r=742;t=60             # Current state: 742 remaining, resets in 60s

Earlier drafts used a triplet — RateLimit-Limit, RateLimit-Remaining, RateLimit-Reset — and many shipped APIs still use that triplet or the unstandardized X-RateLimit-* family. Expect any of these when consuming APIs. For new APIs, prefer the current draft fields; whichever names you choose, document them — header names are part of your contract, and the draft may still change before becoming an RFC.

On 429 responses, include Retry-After when the server can give a meaningful retry time. It is a stable, standard HTTP header, but HTTP permits a 429 response without it:

HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Retry-After: 30
RateLimit-Policy: "hour";q=1000;w=3600
RateLimit: "hour";r=0;t=30
Content-Type: application/problem+json

{
  "type": "https://api.example.com/problems/rate-limit-exceeded",
  "title": "Rate Limit Exceeded",
  "status": 429,
  "detail": "You have exceeded 1000 requests per hour. Retry after 30 seconds."
}

Design Considerations

• Different limits for different operations — reads are cheaper than writes
• Communicate limits in documentation — don't make consumers discover them by hitting 429s
• Recommend exponential backoff with jitter in your docs — naive retry loops cause thundering herds

HTTP Caching

Assign explicit freshness lifetimes on responses. Don't rely on heuristic freshness.

Practical rules:

• Prefer Cache-Control: max-age=N over Expires — even short freshness (e.g., max-age=5) enables reuse across multiple clients
• Assign ETags for efficient revalidation without re-transferring the body
• If a request header changes the response, use Vary on ALL responses from that resource (including the default)
• Use no-store for responses containing sensitive data — no-cache does NOT mean "don't cache" (it means "stored but revalidate before use")

See resources/http-fundamentals.md for the full Cache-Control directive table plus content negotiation, header design, and protocol version independence.

REST Conventions

Resource Naming

Pattern	Convention	Example
Endpoints	Plural nouns, no verbs	GET /api/tasks, POST /api/tasks
Query params	camelCase	?sortBy=createdAt&pageSize=20
Response fields	camelCase	{ createdAt, updatedAt, taskId }
Boolean fields	is/has/can prefix	isComplete, hasAttachments
Enum values	UPPER_SNAKE	"IN_PROGRESS", "COMPLETED"
Headers	No X- prefix (RFC 6648/BCP 178)	Example-Request-Id

Resource Design

GET    /api/tasks              → List tasks (with query params for filtering)
POST   /api/tasks              → Create a task
GET    /api/tasks/:id          → Get a single task
PATCH  /api/tasks/:id          → Update a task (partial)
DELETE /api/tasks/:id          → Delete a task

GET    /api/tasks/:id/comments → List comments for a task (sub-resource)
POST   /api/tasks/:id/comments → Add a comment to a task

Use PATCH for partial updates (only provided fields change). Use PUT only when the client sends the complete object.

Pagination

Paginate list endpoints whose result can grow beyond a bounded, safe response. Small closed enumerations may return the complete set when that bound is part of the contract:

// Request
// GET /api/tasks?page=1&pageSize=20&sortBy=createdAt&sortOrder=desc

// Response shape
type PaginatedResult<T> = {
  readonly data: ReadonlyArray<T>;
  readonly pagination: {
    readonly page: number;
    readonly pageSize: number;
    readonly totalItems: number;
    readonly totalPages: number;
  };
};

Filtering

Use query parameters for filters:

GET /api/tasks?status=in_progress&assignee=user123&createdAfter=2025-01-01

Input/Output Separation

Separate what the caller provides from what the system returns:

// Input: what the caller provides
type CreateTaskInput = {
  readonly title: string;
  readonly description?: string;
};

// Output: includes server-generated fields
type Task = {
  readonly id: TaskId;
  readonly title: string;
  readonly description: string | null;
  readonly createdAt: Date;
  readonly updatedAt: Date;
  readonly createdBy: UserId;
};

Common Rationalizations

Rationalization	Reality
"We'll document the API later"	The types ARE the documentation. Define them first.
"We don't need a bound for this growing list"	Define pagination or another documented safe bound before the result can grow beyond one response. Closed, contractually bounded lists do not need ceremonial pagination.
"PATCH is complicated, let's just use PUT"	PUT requires the full object every time. PATCH is what clients actually want.
"We'll version the API when we need to"	Breaking changes without versioning break consumers. Design for extension from the start.
"Nobody uses that undocumented behavior"	Hyrum's Law: if it's observable, somebody depends on it.
"Internal APIs don't need contracts"	Internal consumers are still consumers. Contracts prevent coupling and enable parallel work.
"Retries are the client's problem"	Without idempotency, retries create duplicates. Design for at-least-once delivery.
"We'll add an abuse control after this expensive public operation is attacked"	Protect unauthenticated, costly, or abuse-prone operations from the start. Publish quota headers only when a client-visible quota is actually part of the contract.
"Error messages are just for debugging"	Errors are part of your API's developer experience. Make them actionable, not diagnostic.

Red Flags

• Endpoints that return different shapes depending on conditions
• Inconsistent error formats across endpoints
• Error responses that expose stack traces or internal paths
• Breaking changes to existing fields (type changes, removals)
• Potentially unbounded list endpoints without pagination or another explicit bound
• Verbs in REST URLs (/api/createTask, /api/getUsers)
• Third-party API responses used without validation
• No typed input/output schemas for endpoints
• Retriable POST operations where duplicate attempts can repeat a state-changing effect and no idempotency strategy is defined
• Documented quota policies whose responses do not expose enough state for clients to behave correctly
• Retry logic without exponential backoff
• Browser-served responses missing the entry point's applicable security headers
• Custom X- prefixed headers (deprecated by RFC 6648)

Verification

After designing an API:

• Every endpoint has a typed output contract and typed input where input exists
• Error responses follow a single consistent format (RFC 9457 for public APIs, or a simpler consistent shape for internal APIs)
• Error responses never leak implementation details (stack traces, internal paths)
• Untrusted representation/schema validation happens at trust boundaries; domain invariants remain enforced by their owner
• Growing list endpoints have pagination or another documented safe bound
• New fields are additive and optional (backward compatible)
• Naming follows consistent conventions across all endpoints
• Contract defined before implementation (contract-first)
• Retriable POST operations define how duplicate attempts avoid repeated effects
• APIs with documented quota policies expose the client-visible limit state consistently
• Content-Type is application/problem+json for RFC 9457 responses, application/json for simpler formats
• Browser-facing entry points apply security headers suited to the served content and deployment policy
• Caching strategy defined (explicit Cache-Control, ETags for revalidation, Vary where needed)

Attribution

This skill adapts Addy Osmani's MIT-licensed api-and-interface-design skill. Local history records the adaptation but not the original upstream import revision. See resources/source-notes.md for the immutable audit baseline (which is not an import-revision claim), retained ideas, and local departures; see LICENSE for the applicable upstream notice.