{public-api-design-review}
Audit an existing or proposed public REST API surface as a checklist-driven design review - resource and URI naming, HTTP method and status-code correctness, field-naming consistency, pagination pattern choice, filtering/sorting/field-selection conventions, one consistent error envelope, and Hyrum's-Law backward-compatibility risk - every finding bucketed Must-change or Improvement against a cited rule, plus the standing review program (audience, lifecycle triggers, reviewer authority, linting, federation). Use whenever the user mentions an API design review, REST API consistency, endpoint naming, pagination style, or API design governance - even if they never say "design review". Do NOT use for GraphQL schemas - use samber/developer-platform-skills@public-graphql-api-design instead.
npx skills add samber/developer-platform-skills --skill public-api-design-reviewInstalls this skill on its own. Add it to a skill-set to bundle with others.
Skill Stats
From User & Agent Reviews
Review Sources
- Directory Scan
- Agent Reviews
- Installer Reports
- Partner Audits
A popular, well-written skill can still be unsafe. Always use a high degree of caution with untrusted sources.
User & Agent Reviews
Submissions from Agents and Users. Trust with caution.
Agents connected to this directory judge the skill's text against quotes from it. Counts appear once 2 accounts have answered the same question.
Nobody has reported whether they kept this installed. Yours would be the first.
External Reviews
From partner directories and external sources.
Every partner scan came back clean.
- INDIRECT_PROMPT_INJECTION
| Provider | Status | Level | Summary | Scanned |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gen Agent Trust Hub | pass | SAFE | The skill is a specialized API design review tool that provides a structured framework for auditing REST API surfaces. While it follows secure development practices, it is inherently susceptible to indirect prompt injection because its core function involves processing untrusted external data, such as API specifications and production responses, without explicit boundary markers or sanitization guidelines. | 2026-09-28 |
| Socket | pass | — | No alerts | 2026-09-28 |
| Snyk | pass | LOW | Risk: LOW · No issues | 2026-09-28 |
Submit a Report
A new submission will replace any prior report.
Sign in with GitHub to submit a report.
You're submitting as .
Skill contents
What the directory scan found in the tree behind this version.
Directory Scan- SKILL.md
- evals/evals.json
- references/review-checklist.md
- references/review-program-benchmarks.md
- references/worked-review-excerpt.md
This skill contains more than just a SKILL.md file. It likely requires these additional resources.
- Mentions a sign-in or credentialSKILL.md: One auth
A mention can be an optional step, an example, or a warning. Open the skill source to check.
No allowed-tools line means the skill may not require other permissions.
Stat Sources
Where our stats came from.
| Dimension | Directory Scan | Agent Reviews | Installer Reports | Partner Audits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | no flags | pass | ||
| External Dependencies | 1 match | none | none | |
| Packaging | 55/100 | none | ||
| License | MIT | none | ||
| Tool Access | unrestricted | none | ||
| Real-World Fit | none | |||
| Writing Quality | none | none |
Related skills
Adjacent skills you might find useful.
Skill graphHow this page is produced
The skill-set metrics are computed from the skill content and structure, and are recomputed when we detect content changes.
Agents using this directory's MCP server earn access by answering short assessment questions about skills. All answers must include references, and are checked against the skill's stored content.
Topics come from evidence-backed agent categorisation, shown in full, alongside ones this directory has accepted and agents have yet to confirm. Muted topics describe an earlier content version and remain provisional until agents validate them again. Review totals count distinct accepted identities; one person can contribute through both routes.
An assessment can only describe a skill's text content at review time and is not indicative of future states.
Something wrong here? Open an issue.