Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索执行命令github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

api-workshopAPI workshop 搜索

Agent Skill

用于辅助 API 设计、接口文档、请求响应结构和服务集成说明。它适合让 Agent 梳理 endpoint、生成 OpenAPI 草稿、检查字段命名、整理错误码或辅助前后端联调。使用时需要确认真实业务语义、鉴权方式、分页和错误处理规则;涉及生成接口文档时,应避免凭空补字段,最好从现有代码、schema 或接口样例中提取事实。

总安装

261

周安装

11

GitHub Stars

191

下载量

92
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:api-workshop(API workshop 搜索)
来源仓库:https://github.com/wcygan/dotfiles
仓库路径:skills/api-workshop
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/wcygan/dotfiles --skill api-workshop
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/wcygan/dotfiles --skill api-workshop

简介

组织多 Agent 参与的 API 设计与评审工作坊。

  • 通过辩论机制产出经过充分讨论的 API 规范。
  • 内置 OpenAPI 模板与争议解决提示词。
  • 适用于复杂系统集成前的架构决策阶段。api-workshop 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 需要至少五个专用角色 Agent 协同运行。

SKILL.md

API Workshop

A debate-driven multi-agent workshop for designing and reviewing APIs. Five specialized agents propose designs and challenge each other to produce a well-reasoned API specification.

Prerequisites

Agents will need access to API design patterns and standards. The REFERENCE.md file provides OpenAPI templates, design principles, and debate prompts.

Inputs

The user provides:

  1. API Description (required) — What the API should do, or URL to existing spec
  2. Context (optional) — Business domain, constraints, existing systems
  3. Focus areas (optional) — Which aspects matter most (see Agent Roster below)
  4. Format preference (optional) — OpenAPI 3.x, GraphQL schema, AsyncAPI

If the user provides a URL to an existing spec, agents will review it rather than design from scratch.

Agent Roster

Each agent brings a specialized perspective and debates with others:

#AgentFocusChallenges
1API DesignerConsumer UX, discoverability, naming"Is this intuitive for developers?"
2Domain ModelerCorrect modeling, consistency, DDD"Does this match the domain?"
3Security AuditorAuth/authz, data exposure, OWASP"What are the security risks?"
4Performance AnalystEfficiency, caching, over/under-fetching"Will this scale?"
5Tech LeadStandards compliance, versioning, docs"Does this follow best practices?"

Workflow

Phase 1: Context Gathering (Main Agent)

Before spawning the workshop agents:

  1. If given a description: Extract requirements, constraints, and success criteria
  2. If given a URL: Fetch the existing API spec and summarize it
  3. Identify domain entities: List the core resources/types involved
  4. Clarify open questions: Ask user if anything is ambiguous
  5. Create initial context document: workspace/api-context.md

Phase 2: Initial Proposals (Sub-agents 1-5)

Spawn all five agents in parallel. Each receives:

  • The context document from Phase 1
  • Their agent instructions (from agents/*.md)
  • The API design reference (REFERENCE.md)

Each agent independently:

  1. Proposes an initial design approach
  2. Creates example endpoint/schema definitions
  3. Writes their rationale and concerns
  4. Saves to workspace/proposals/<agent-name>.md

Phase 3: Cross-Examination (Main Agent Orchestrates)

For each significant design decision, run a mini-debate:

  1. API Style (REST vs GraphQL vs RPC)

- API Designer proposes based on UX - Performance Analyst challenges based on query patterns - Tech Lead weighs standardization concerns

  1. Authentication Strategy (OAuth2, API keys, JWT)

- Security Auditor proposes approach - API Designer challenges if it adds friction - Tech Lead validates against standards

  1. Versioning Strategy (URI, header, content negotiation)

- Tech Lead proposes approach - API Designer challenges impact on consumers - Domain Modeler validates semantic compatibility

  1. Resource Design (granularity, relationships, operations)

- Domain Modeler proposes structure - Performance Analyst challenges N+1 issues - API Designer validates developer experience

  1. Error Handling (status codes, error formats, problem details)

- Security Auditor proposes secure defaults - API Designer ensures clarity for consumers - Tech Lead validates RFC 7807 compliance

For each debate:

  • Present the question and stakes
  • Let 2-3 agents argue their positions
  • Synthesize the decision with rationale
  • Document trade-offs considered

Phase 4: Synthesis (Main Agent)

After all debates complete:

  1. Reconcile proposals: Merge agent input into coherent design
  2. Resolve conflicts: Make final calls on contested decisions
  3. Document rationale: Explain why each choice was made
  4. Identify risks: Note what could go wrong and mitigations
  5. Generate specification: Create complete API spec in requested format

Phase 5: Output

Generate the final deliverable following the template in REFERENCE.md:

  1. Executive Summary: High-level design decisions and rationale
  2. Architecture: API style, auth, versioning, error handling
  3. Specification: Complete OpenAPI/GraphQL schema
  4. Design Rationale: Why each major decision was made
  5. Trade-offs: What was considered and rejected
  6. Implementation Notes: Tips for backend developers
  7. Client Examples: Sample requests/responses in multiple languages

Save to workspace/api-specification.md and present to the user.

Debate Topics

The workshop should address these key decisions:

API Style

  • REST: Resource-oriented, HTTP semantics, wide tooling
  • GraphQL: Flexible queries, type-safe, learning curve
  • RPC: Simple, efficient, less discoverable

Versioning

  • URI versioning: /v1/users (explicit, breaks caching)
  • Header versioning: Accept: application/vnd.api+json;version=1 (clean URIs, harder to test)
  • Content negotiation: Media types control breaking changes

Authentication

  • OAuth2: Standard, complex setup, great for delegated auth
  • API keys: Simple, less secure, good for server-to-server
  • JWT: Stateless, revocation challenges, flexible claims

Pagination

  • Offset/limit: Simple, inconsistent under writes
  • Cursor-based: Consistent, opaque, harder to jump to page N
  • Keyset: Efficient, requires indexed sort key

Error Handling

  • Problem Details (RFC 7807): Structured, extensible, standard
  • Custom format: Tailored to domain, non-standard
  • HTTP status only: Simple, lacks detail

Output Structure

workspace/
├── api-context.md                  # Phase 1 context gathering
├── proposals/
│   ├── api-designer.md
│   ├── domain-modeler.md
│   ├── security-auditor.md
│   ├── performance-analyst.md
│   └── tech-lead.md
├── debates/
│   ├── api-style-debate.md
│   ├── auth-strategy-debate.md
│   ├── versioning-debate.md
│   ├── resource-design-debate.md
│   └── error-handling-debate.md
└── api-specification.md            # Final deliverable

Coordinator Responsibilities

  1. Gather context and clarify requirements with user
  2. Spawn proposal agents in parallel
  3. Orchestrate debates on key design decisions
  4. Ensure all agents engage (not just API Designer)
  5. Synthesize final specification with rationale
  6. Present deliverable to user
  7. Offer to generate client SDKs or mock server if requested

Customization

The user can customize the workshop by:

  • Skipping agents: "Skip performance, focus on security"
  • Adding constraints: "Must support GraphQL subscriptions"
  • Specifying style: "Design a REST API following JSON:API spec"
  • Setting priorities: "Optimize for developer experience over efficiency"
  • Providing examples: "Similar to Stripe's API" or "Here's our existing API"
  • Requesting specific debates: "Debate whether we need versioning at all"

Adapt the agent roster and debate topics accordingly.

Example Invocations

/api-workshop design an API for a task management system

/api-workshop review https://api.example.com/openapi.json

/api-workshop design a GraphQL API for e-commerce with subscriptions

/api-workshop compare REST vs GraphQL for our social network

The workshop adapts to whether you're designing new, reviewing existing, or comparing alternatives.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

35.75%
按下载量换算33

Claude

28.86%
按下载量换算27

Cursor

19.49%
按下载量换算18

Gemini CLI

9.27%
按下载量换算9

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 npx skills add https://github.com/wcygan/dotfiles --skill api-workshop 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills