kotlin-api-design

# Kotlin API design ## Core principle Place behavior, types, and platform seams where their meaning is clearest to callers; use the smallest public abstraction that preserves domain language and platform independence. ## Procedure 1. Name the domain concept, its owning type or module, and the callers that need to depend on it. 2. Choose function ownership before adding an extension, factory, helper, or service layer. 3. Represent a single-field domain concept with the smallest type that preserves its semantic and interop contract. 4. Keep shared code semantic; put native SDK and platform details behind an interface or a narrowly justified expect/actual boundary. 5. Read the focused reference for every material API decision below. 6. Finish when the public surface states domain intent, platform details remain at leaves, and callers do not depend on convenience abstractions with no clear owner. ## Topic router | Signal | Read | |---|---| | Member vs top-level, extension, factory, service, or receiver choice | [Function ownership](references/functions.md) | | Primitive obsession, one-field domain type, `@JvmInline value class`, data class, interop, or Compose stability | [Value classes](references/value-classes.md) | | Source sets, platform services, native SDKs, files, sensors, permissions, Compose Multiplatform interop, or expect/actual | [Multiplatform boundaries](references/multiplatform-boundaries.md) | | Branching and guard-condition shape | [Kotlin control flow](../kotlin-control-flow/SKILL.md) | ## RED/GREEN agent scenarios 1. RED adds an extension on `String` to hide repository behavior. GREEN gives the behavior a domain owner or service with a meaningful dependency boundary. 2. Novel case: shared UI needs a platform permission service. GREEN preserves a semantic shared contract and places platform SDK calls at the native leaf. 3. Counterexample: an internal helper has one obvious owning class. GREEN keeps it a member instead of extracting a factory or value type for ceremony.