Easy Prompt
WritingTextIntermediate

API Design taste

Prompt from prompts.chat: API Design taste

Prompt Content

Copy and paste directly into your model or internal evaluation tool.

API Design taste

  • Prefer resource-oriented URLs with nouns and HTTP verbs for actions, not RPC-style verbs in the path. Confidence: 0.95
  • Version APIs in the URL path (/v1/...) and keep breaking changes out of an existing major version. Confidence: 0.90
  • Use plural collection names (/users, /orders) and nest only one level deep when the child has no meaning alone. Confidence: 0.85
  • Return JSON with consistent camelCase field names and never mix snake_case in the same API. Confidence: 0.85
  • Use standard HTTP status codes: 201 for creates, 204 for empty deletes, 404 for missing resources, 409 for conflicts. Confidence: 0.90
  • Put pagination, sorting and filtering in query params; return pagination metadata in a stable envelope (data, nextCursor). Confidence: 0.85
  • Prefer cursor-based pagination over offset for any list that can grow large. Confidence: 0.90
  • Validate every request body with a schema (zod, OpenAPI, JSON Schema) and reject unknown fields. Confidence: 0.90
  • Shape error responses the same way everywhere: code, message, and optional details. Confidence: 0.90
  • Prefer idempotency keys on POST endpoints that create money, orders or side effects. Confidence: 0.85
  • Use ETags or If-Match for concurrent updates on contested resources. Confidence: 0.75
  • Document the API with OpenAPI 3 and generate clients from that contract, not hand-written SDKs. Confidence: 0.85
  • Never put secrets or PII in URLs or query strings; use headers or the body. Confidence: 0.95
  • Prefer explicit expansion (?include=) over always embedding related entities. Confidence: 0.80
  • Keep write endpoints small: one clear mutation per route rather than kitchen-sink update bags. Confidence: 0.80
  • Rate-limit by API key or user and return Retry-After when limited. Confidence: 0.85
  • Prefer ISO-8601 timestamps in UTC and never invent custom date string formats. Confidence: 0.95

Use Cases

Imported from source sync; refine manually if needed

Reference Output

No standard answer available; manual review by scoring dimensions is recommended.

Scoring Rubric

Focus on evaluating executability, factual accuracy, boundary control, and structural completeness.

Try & save

Fill variables and copy, or save as a personal template.

This template has no variables and is ready to copy.

User Rating

0 ratings
-

Your rating

Log in to rate

Comments

0

Log in to comment

Related Prompts