Design around contracts, not implementations. Use when: (1) building multi-step features where placeholders would otherwise accumulate, (2) expensive or stateful objects need mock and real implementations (databases, caches, external services), (3) scaling fault lines exist where in-proc vs. remote implementations should be swappable, (4) test mocks need to verify behavior through observation hooks, (5) designing a system that may need to scale from single-process to distributed without a rewrite, (6) the user mentions 'interface first', 'mock implementation', 'store interface', 'transaction boundary', 'scaling fault line', 'single binary', 'deployment topology', or 'test contract'. Primarily Go, but applicable to any language with interface-like constructs (Rust traits, Java/Scala interfaces).
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Design around contracts, not implementations. Use when: (1) building multi-step features where placeholders would otherwise accumulate, (2) expensive or stateful objects need mock and real implementations (databases, caches, external services), (3) scaling fault lines exist where in-proc vs. remote implementations should be swappable, (4) test mocks need to verify behavior through observation hooks, (5) designing a system that may need to scale from single-process to distributed without a rewrite, (6) the user mentions 'interface first', 'mock implementation', 'store interface', 'transaction boundary', 'scaling fault line', 'single binary', 'deployment topology', or 'test contract'. Primarily Go, but applicable to any language with interface-like constructs (Rust traits, Java/Scala interfaces).
Interface-First Design
Program against the contract, not the implementation. Define interfaces before writing any concrete code. Stubs become real implementations additively — never a rewrite.
Why This Should Be a First-Reach Tool
This pattern prevents three engineering failure modes:
The placeholder trap. "I'll build the real thing later" is how tech debt ships to customers. If the interface exists first, your stub already has the right shape. The progression from stub → working code is additive. Nothing gets rewritten, nothing gets accidentally shipped as a placeholder.
Scaling fault lines. Interfaces mark the architectural boundaries where deployment topology can change. Same interface, different backing: in-proc SQLite store vs. sharded Postgres cluster, local cache vs. Redis. The interface is the scaling decision point. You don't refactor your callers when you scale — you swap the implementation. See "The Single Binary Principle" below for the full vision.
Test mocks with observation hooks. Not "mock everything" (which is fragile) but "mock the expensive boundaries" — databases, network services, clocks — with implementations that are correct enough to exercise real business logic. Each mock is purpose-built for what it needs to observe. Don't build the universal mock framework; build what you need, export it, move on.
When to Apply
You feel the urge to build a placeholder implementation in a multi-step build
An expensive or stateful object (database, cache, external API) needs isolation from its consumers
You can identify a "scaling fault line" — a boundary where in-proc and remote implementations should be interchangeable
You need test mocks that verify behavior, not just return canned data
Multiple consumers of a subsystem are coupled to its implementation details
The Transaction Pattern
When an interface wraps a transactional store, prefer the closure-based Update pattern over BeginTransaction:
type Store interface {
// Read-only queries
GetUser(ctx context.Context, id string) (*User, error)
ListUsers(ctx context.Context) ([]*User, error)
// Transactional writes — the boundary is completely explicit
Update(ctx context.Context, fn func(tx WriteTx)error) error
}
type WriteTx interface {
CreateUser(user *User) error
DeleteUser(id string) error
}
The Update closure makes the transactional boundary unambiguous: everything inside fn is one transaction, committed on nil return, rolled back on error. There's no forgotten Commit(), no leaked transaction handle, no "who owns this connection?" confusion.
Escape hatch:BeginTransaction(ctx) (WriteTx, error) with an explicit Commit() on the WriteTx. Use this only when the transaction must span caller-controlled logic that can't be captured in a closure (e.g., streaming writes, interactive workflows). It exists because sometimes you've painted yourself into an API corner — acknowledge it, use it, don't pretend it's the preferred path.
This pattern has deep roots: Clojure's Refs and Transactions use the same "pass a function to the transactional boundary" approach. The principle is language-agnostic even when the syntax is Go-specific.
Mock Philosophy
Don't build the universal mock framework. Build what you need, export it, move on.
It's not unusual to see several implementations of the same interface in a codebase — a real implementation, a test mock with recording, a simpler test mock for a different scenario. Each is purpose-built. Be kind, export your goodies, someone else may find them useful. But the "universal mock tool" rarely pays its freight costs.
Mock implementations should be correct enough that business logic exercised through them produces meaningful results. A mock store that returns hardcoded data can verify happy paths; a mock store that actually maintains state in a map can verify sequences of reads and writes. Choose the level of fidelity your tests actually need.
Observation hooks are ad-hoc: a slice of recorded calls, a channel that receives events, a counter, a callback. Whatever the test needs to verify its correctness criteria. No ceremony required.
Narrow test seams for time, randomness, and system calls
When the subject-under-test reaches for a global (time.Now, rand.Read,
os.Stdin), introduce a narrow interface at the boundary. One real
impl, one test impl. Production passes the real one; tests pass a
fake that exposes observation + control methods. Example from
idpair-inbound:
The test's ManualTicker exposes Fire() to push a tick and
AwaitReset() as a deterministic sync barrier (via unbuffered
channel). Tests then run without time.Sleep.
The interface should only contain methods the actor actually uses —
not the full time.Ticker surface. YAGNI applies.
The Single Binary Principle
Every distributed application can be modeled as a single app. The default state is that the logic and coherence of the entire system can be shown to be sound, because you can run it as a single process. Not as a dozen Docker containers each running whatever was built by other teams — but something the compiler validates as a whole.
How it works: One Go binary, multiple subcommands. Deployment topology is selected by CLI flags, not by which container you're running.
// All implementations live in the same binary.var ud UserDirectory
switch cfg.Mode {
case"standalone":
ud = NewSQLiteUserDirectory(cfg.DBPath)
case"sharded":
ud = NewShardedClient(cfg.RegistrationServer)
}
app := NewApp(ud, /* ... */)
# Nodes 1-4: run the sharded data store
super-app data-store --shard-range A-B --registration-server ...
super-app data-store --shard-range C-D --registration-server ...
super-app data-store --shard-range E-G --registration-server ...
super-app data-store --shard-range H-Z --registration-server ...
# Node 0: run the main app, pointed at the sharded cluster
super-app main-app --mode sharded --registration-server ...
The main-app consumer has no idea whether UserDirectory is backed by a local SQLite file or a four-node sharded cluster. It calls the same methods, gets the same types back.
Why this matters:
The compiler validates the whole system. All modes — standalone, sharded, distributed — compile from the same source. If the interface changes, every implementation must update, and the compiler tells you exactly where.
Integration tests run in-process. You can test the full system — including the sharding logic — in a single test binary with no containers, no network, no Docker Compose.
"Microservices" become deployment topology, not code organization. The boundaries aren't between repos or teams — they're between interface implementations, all living in the same binary. You choose at deployment time, not at architecture-astronaut time.
Incremental scaling. Start standalone. When you outgrow a single node, add the sharded implementation behind the same interface. No rewrite, no new repo, no new CI pipeline. Just a new subcommand and a CLI flag.
This is what "microservices" should have been: not org-chart-driven repository proliferation, but interface-driven deployment flexibility within a coherent, compiler-verified system.
Intersection with the Actor Pattern
The actor pattern and interface-first design are natural complements. The actor's public interface is the contract. The run() goroutine and channel machinery are hidden behind it. Callers interact with MyService — they don't know whether the implementation is:
A channel-based actor in the same process
An RPC client talking to a remote actor
A test mock recording calls in a slice
This is the scaling fault line in action: the interface lets you start with an in-proc actor and later swap in a remote client without touching any caller code.
