CRITICAL: Use for error handling. Triggers: Result, Option, Error, ?, unwrap, expect, panic, anyhow, thiserror, when to panic vs return Result, custom error, error propagation, 错误处理, Result 用法, 什么时候用 panic
Instalación
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
CRITICAL: Use for error handling. Triggers: Result, Option, Error, ?, unwrap, expect, panic, anyhow, thiserror, when to panic vs return Result, custom error, error propagation, 错误处理, Result 用法, 什么时候用 panic
user-invocable
false
Error Handling
Layer 1: Language Mechanics
Core Question
Is this failure expected or a bug?
Before choosing error handling strategy:
Can this fail in normal operation?
Who should handle this failure?
What context does the caller need?
Error → Design Question
Pattern
Don't Just Say
Ask Instead
unwrap panics
"Use ?"
Is None/Err actually possible here?
Type mismatch on ?
"Use anyhow"
Are error types designed correctly?
Lost error context
"Add .context()"
What does the caller need to know?
Too many error variants
"Use Box"
Is error granularity right?
Thinking Prompt
Before handling an error:
What kind of failure is this?
Expected → Result<T, E>
Absence normal → Option
Bug/invariant → panic!
Unrecoverable → panic!
Who handles this?
Caller → propagate with ?
Current function → match/if-let
User → friendly error message
Programmer → panic with message
What context is needed?
Type of error → thiserror variants
Call chain → anyhow::Context
Debug info → anyhow or tracing
Trace Up ↑
When error strategy is unclear:
"Should I return Result or Option?"
↑ Ask: Is absence/failure normal or exceptional?
↑ Check: m09-domain (what does domain say?)
↑ Check: domain-* (error handling requirements)
Situation
Trace To
Question
Too many unwraps
m09-domain
Is the data model right?
Error context design
m13-domain-error
What recovery is needed?
Library vs app errors
m11-ecosystem
Who are the consumers?
Trace Down ↓
From design to implementation:
"Expected failure, library code"
↓ Use: thiserror for typed errors
"Expected failure, application code"
↓ Use: anyhow for ergonomic errors
"Absence is normal (find, get, lookup)"
↓ Use: Option<T>
"Bug or invariant violation"
↓ Use: panic!, assert!, unreachable!
"Need to propagate with context"
↓ Use: .context("what was happening")
Quick Reference
Pattern
When
Example
Result<T, E>
Recoverable error
fn read() -> Result<String, io::Error>
Option<T>
Absence is normal
fn find() -> Option<&Item>
?
Propagate error
let data = file.read()?;
unwrap()
Dev/test only
config.get("key").unwrap()
expect()
Invariant holds
env.get("HOME").expect("HOME set")
panic!
Unrecoverable
panic!("critical failure")
Library vs Application
Context
Error Crate
Why
Library
thiserror
Typed errors for consumers
Application
anyhow
Ergonomic error handling
Mixed
Both
thiserror at boundaries, anyhow internally
Decision Flowchart
Is failure expected?
├─ Yes → Is absence the only "failure"?
│ ├─ Yes → Option<T>
│ └─ No → Result<T, E>
│ ├─ Library → thiserror
│ └─ Application → anyhow
└─ No → Is it a bug?
├─ Yes → panic!, assert!
└─ No → Consider if really unrecoverable
Use ? → Need context?
├─ Yes → .context("message")
└─ No → Plain ?