api-for-yourself
Publish 'how to work with me' as a literal API spec — endpoints (what to ask me for and what you'll get back), rate limits (meeting and interrupt to…
它会碰到什么
这一栏是扫描器报的事实,不是结论。命中多不等于有毒(安全工具、规则库、示例脚本本来就会包含危险写法),命中少也不等于干净。它和你手上的凭据、文件、网络有什么关系,需要你自己看。
技能内容
API For Yourself Skill
"User manual for me" documents have existed for years and mostly read like
horoscopes ("I value transparency"). The API-spec format fixes them by force:
an endpoint must say what you send and what comes back; a rate limit must be a
number; an error code must name the actual failure behaviour. The joke is the
format — the payload is real self-knowledge, and the test of every line is
would a new teammate behave differently after reading it? Deadpan technical
voice, honest contents, one page.
What This Skill Produces
- A personal API spec: endpoints, request formats, rate limits, error
codes, auth & scopes, dependencies, scheduled maintenance, changelog —
in deadpan OpenAPI-ish style
- A quickstart at the top: the three calls that cover 90% of integrations
with this human
- Optionally a team version: specs for a whole team session, plus the
facilitation note for running it as an exercise
Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
- How people should bring them things: channel preferences, context depth
(one-liner or brief?), and what makes a request instantly workable vs
instantly annoying
- Real capacity: meeting tolerance per day, focus blocks, response-time honest
averages by channel
- Actual failure modes, told honestly: what happens when they're surprised
late Friday, overloaded, given vague asks, or micromanaged
- What earns trust and what burns it; energy sources and drains; current
quirks a teammate would discover in week three anyway
Process
- Interview past the horoscope. For every generic answer ("I like
directness"), push for the behavioural version: what does a *well-formed
request* actually contain? What's the observable symptom when it's
missing? The spec is built from behaviours, not values.
- Design the endpoints — the 4–6 things people actually come to this
person for. Each gets: method + path (POST /decisions), request body
(what to include), response (what they'll get and by when), and the errors
it can throw. Include one honest deprecated endpoint (`/status-meetings —
deprecated, use async /updates instead`).
- Publish real numbers. Rate limits with actual figures ("3 meetings/day
before response quality degrades — 429 after that"), response-time SLAs by
channel that match reality, scheduled maintenance (focus blocks, the school
run, timezone). A limit without a number is a mood.
- Write error codes as self-knowledge. The funniest section and the most
useful: 429 Too Many Meetings (symptom: monosyllabic replies; retry:
tomorrow morning) · 400 Vague Request (returns clarifying questions, not
work) · 503 Friday 5pm Surprise (accepted but not processed until Monday;
don't resend). Each code: symptom, what NOT to do, the retry strategy.
- Auth, changelog, quickstart. Auth: how trust levels are earned and what
each unlocks (scope: direct-feedback granted after…). Changelog: 2–3
honest entries ("v3.1: no longer needs to win every argument — patched
after 2024 retro"). Quickstart on top: the three most-used calls, copy-paste
ready.
Output Format
# [Name] API — v[X.Y]
> One-line summary of what this human is for.
## Quickstart
[The 3 calls covering 90% of use]
## Endpoints
### POST /[thing]
Request: … · Response (SLA): … · Errors: [codes]
## Rate limits
[Real numbers: meetings, interrupts, context switches]
## Error codes
| Code | Trigger | Symptom you'll observe | Retry strategy |
## Auth & scopes
[How trust is earned; what each level unlocks]
## Scheduled maintenance
[Focus blocks, hours, timezone truths]
## Changelog
[2-3 honest entries — growth as version notes]
Quality Checks
- [ ] Every line passes the behaviour test: a new teammate would act
differently having read it — zero horoscope lines survive
- [ ] Rate limits and SLAs carry real numbers the person will actually honour
- [ ] At least one error code and one changelog entry required genuine honesty
(a flaw admitted, a patch noted) — that's what makes readers trust the
rest
- [ ] The joke never outruns the information: deadpan format, true payload
- [ ] One page; the quickstart works standalone if that's all anyone reads
Anti-Patterns
- [ ] Do not write requirements-for-others disguised as self-documentation —
it's an API you offer, not an SLA you impose; tone stays "here's how to
get the best out of me"
- [ ] Do not fake quirks for comedy or hide real ones for image — week three
reveals everything anyway
- [ ] Do not ship without the errors section; specs with only happy paths are
marketing
- [ ] Do not let it ossify — the changelog implies maintenance; suggest a
re-version at role changes
Related
[[the-understudy]] is how an AI learns your inside; this is how humans call
your outside. [[working-agreements]] for the team-level contract;
[[onboarding-plan]] to slot this into a new joiner's week one.
想直接用这个技能?
本站把开放许可(MIT / Apache 等)的技能按仓库打包整理到网盘,点一下转存到你自己的网盘,不用一个个从 GitHub 拉。许可未声明的技能只给原始仓库链接,不打包。
同名技能的其他版本
有 3 个不同仓库或目录里都有叫 api-for-yourself 的技能。它们内容并不相同,别混用:
- mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills — Publish 'how to work with me' as a literal API spec — endpoints (what to ask me for and wh
- mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills — Summarise what Api For Yourself does in one line. Use when asked to [trigger phrases the u