AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Design An Interface

skill-mattpocock-skills-design-an-interface · by mattpocock

Generate multiple radically different interface designs for a module using parallel sub-agents. Use when user wants to design an API, explore interface options, compare module shapes, or mentions "design it twice".

No reviews yet
0 installs
31 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-mattpocock-skills-design-an-interface

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-mattpocock-skills-design-an-interface)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
3mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Design An Interface? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Design an Interface

Based on "Design It Twice" from "A Philosophy of Software Design": your first idea is unlikely to be the best. Generate multiple radically different designs, then compare.

Workflow

1. Gather Requirements

Before designing, understand:

  • [ ] What problem does this module solve?
  • [ ] Who are the callers? (other modules, external users, tests)
  • [ ] What are the key operations?
  • [ ] Any constraints? (performance, compatibility, existing patterns)
  • [ ] What should be hidden inside vs exposed?

Ask: "What does this module need to do? Who will use it?"

2. Generate Designs (Parallel Sub-Agents)

Spawn 3+ sub-agents simultaneously using Task tool. Each must produce a radically different approach.

Prompt template for each sub-agent:

Design an interface for: [module description]

Requirements: [gathered requirements]

Constraints for this design: [assign a different constraint to each agent]
- Agent 1: "Minimize method count - aim for 1-3 methods max"
- Agent 2: "Maximize flexibility - support many use cases"
- Agent 3: "Optimize for the most common case"
- Agent 4: "Take inspiration from [specific paradigm/library]"

Output format:
1. Interface signature (types/methods)
2. Usage example (how caller uses it)
3. What this design hides internally
4. Trade-offs of this approach

3. Present Designs

Show each design with:

  1. Interface signature - types, methods, params
  2. Usage examples - how callers actually use it in practice
  3. What it hides - complexity kept internal

Present designs sequentially so user can absorb each approach before comparison.

4. Compare Designs

After showing all designs, compare them on:

  • Interface simplicity: fewer methods, simpler params
  • General-purpose vs specialized: flexibility vs focus
  • Implementation efficiency: does shape allow efficient internals?
  • Depth: small interface hiding significant complexity (good) vs large interface with thin implementation (bad)
  • Ease of correct use vs ease of misuse

Discuss trade-offs in prose, not tables. Highlight where designs diverge most.

5. Synthesize

Often the best design combines insights from multiple options. Ask:

  • "Which design best fits your primary use case?"
  • "Any elements from other designs worth incorporating?"

Evaluation Criteria

From "A Philosophy of Software Design":

Interface simplicity: Fewer methods, simpler params = easier to learn and use correctly.

General-purpose: Can handle future use cases without changes. But beware over-generalization.

Implementation efficiency: Does interface shape allow efficient implementation? Or force awkward internals?

Depth: Small interface hiding significant complexity = deep module (good). Large interface with thin implementation = shallow module (avoid).

Anti-Patterns

  • Don't let sub-agents produce similar designs - enforce radical difference
  • Don't skip comparison - the value is in contrast
  • Don't implement - this is purely about interface shape
  • Don't evaluate based on implementation effort

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.