m13-domain-error
Provides a framework for designing domain-specific error types and recovery strategies.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/m13-domain-error && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/5628" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/m13-domain-error && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/m13-domain-error
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Use when designing domain error handling. Keywords: domain error, error categorization, recovery strategy, retry, fallback, domain error hierarchy, user-facing vs internal errors, error code design, circuit breaker, graceful degradation, resilience, error context, backoff, retry with backoff, error recovery, transient vs permanent error, 领域错误, 错误分类, 恢复策略, 重试, 熔断器, 优雅降级Key capabilities
- →Categorize errors by target audience (User, Developer, Ops)
- →Map error types to specific recovery flows (retry, fallback, fail-fast)
- →Define structured error context requirements
- →Trace business rules to implementation constraints
- →Draft circuit breaker and backoff logic requirements
How it works
It applies a structured taxonomy framework to categorize errors and traces them to specific domain constraints, helping map the error's lifecycle from occurrence to resolution.
Inputs & outputs
When to use m13-domain-error
- →Design domain error hierarchy
- →Implement error recovery strategies
- →Determine user vs internal error messages
- →Design retry and backoff logic
About this skill
Domain Error Strategy
Layer 2: Design Choices
Core Question
Who needs to handle this error, and how should they recover?
Before designing error types:
- Is this user-facing or internal?
- Is recovery possible?
- What context is needed for debugging?
Error Categorization
| Error Type | Audience | Recovery | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| User-facing | End users | Guide action | InvalidEmail, NotFound |
| Internal | Developers | Debug info | DatabaseError, ParseError |
| System | Ops/SRE | Monitor/alert | ConnectionTimeout, RateLimited |
| Transient | Automation | Retry | NetworkError, ServiceUnavailable |
| Permanent | Human | Investigate | ConfigInvalid, DataCorrupted |
Thinking Prompt
Before designing error types:
-
Who sees this error?
- End user → friendly message, actionable
- Developer → detailed, debuggable
- Ops → structured, alertable
-
Can we recover?
- Transient → retry with backoff
- Degradable → fallback value
- Permanent → fail fast, alert
-
What context is needed?
- Call chain → anyhow::Context
- Request ID → structured logging
- Input data → error payload
Trace Up ↑
To domain constraints (Layer 3):
"How should I handle payment failures?"
↑ Ask: What are the business rules for retries?
↑ Check: domain-fintech (transaction requirements)
↑ Check: SLA (availability requirements)
| Question | Trace To | Ask |
|---|---|---|
| Retry policy | domain-* | What's acceptable latency for retry? |
| User experience | domain-* | What message should users see? |
| Compliance | domain-* | What must be logged for audit? |
Trace Down ↓
To implementation (Layer 1):
"Need typed errors"
↓ m06-error-handling: thiserror for library
↓ m04-zero-cost: Error enum design
"Need error context"
↓ m06-error-handling: anyhow::Context
↓ Logging: tracing with fields
"Need retry logic"
↓ m07-concurrency: async retry patterns
↓ Crates: tokio-retry, backoff
Quick Reference
| Recovery Pattern | When | Implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Retry | Transient failures | exponential backoff |
| Fallback | Degraded mode | cached/default value |
| Circuit Breaker | Cascading failures | failsafe-rs |
| Timeout | Slow operations | tokio::time::timeout |
| Bulkhead | Isolation | separate thread pools |
Error Hierarchy
#[derive(thiserror::Error, Debug)]
pub enum AppError {
// User-facing
#[error("Invalid input: {0}")]
Validation(String),
// Transient (retryable)
#[error("Service temporarily unavailable")]
ServiceUnavailable(#[source] reqwest::Error),
// Internal (log details, show generic)
#[error("Internal error")]
Internal(#[source] anyhow::Error),
}
impl AppError {
pub fn is_retryable(&self) -> bool {
matches!(self, Self::ServiceUnavailable(_))
}
}
Retry Pattern
use tokio_retry::{Retry, strategy::ExponentialBackoff};
async fn with_retry<F, T, E>(f: F) -> Result<T, E>
where
F: Fn() -> impl Future<Output = Result<T, E>>,
E: std::fmt::Debug,
{
let strategy = ExponentialBackoff::from_millis(100)
.max_delay(Duration::from_secs(10))
.take(5);
Retry::spawn(strategy, || f()).await
}
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Why Wrong | Better |
|---|---|---|
| Same error for all | No actionability | Categorize by audience |
| Retry everything | Wasted resources | Only transient errors |
| Infinite retry | DoS self | Max attempts + backoff |
| Expose internal errors | Security risk | User-friendly messages |
| No context | Hard to debug | .context() everywhere |
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Why Bad | Better |
|---|---|---|
| String errors | No structure | thiserror types |
| panic! for recoverable | Bad UX | Result with context |
| Ignore errors | Silent failures | Log or propagate |
| Box<dyn Error> everywhere | Lost type info | thiserror |
| Error in happy path | Performance | Early validation |
Related Skills
| When | See |
|---|---|
| Error handling basics | m06-error-handling |
| Retry implementation | m07-concurrency |
| Domain modeling | m09-domain |
| User-facing APIs | domain-* |
When not to use it
- →Simple local scripts without error handling requirements
- →Debugging single-threaded code that lacks external dependencies
Limitations
- →Requires manual alignment with domain-specific business rules
- →Does not automate the implementation of the circuit breaker code itself
How it compares
It moves beyond generic error handling by enforcing a specific architectural taxonomy based on audience and recovery potential.
Compared to similar skills
m13-domain-error side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| m13-domain-error (this skill) | 1 | 6mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| architect-review | 109 | 4mo | No flags | Advanced |
| solid-principles | 57 | 9mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| codex | 32 | 2mo | Review | Advanced |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by actionbook
View all by actionbook →You might also like
architect-review
sickn33
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.
solid-principles
SmidigStorm
Enforce SOLID principles (Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov Substitution, Interface Segregation, Dependency Inversion) in object-oriented design. Use when writing or reviewing classes and modules.
codex
Lucklyric
Invoke Codex CLI for complex coding tasks requiring high reasoning capabilities. This skill should be invoked when users explicitly mention "Codex", request complex implementation challenges, advanced reasoning, or need high-reasoning model assistance. Automatically triggers on codex-related requests and supports session continuation for iterative development.
error-handling-patterns
wshobson
Master error handling patterns across languages including exceptions, Result types, error propagation, and graceful degradation to build resilient applications. Use when implementing error handling, designing APIs, or improving application reliability.
deepwiki-rs
sopaco
AI-powered Rust documentation generation engine for comprehensive codebase analysis, C4 architecture diagrams, and automated technical documentation. Use when Claude needs to analyze source code, understand software architecture, generate technical specs, or create professional documentation from any programming language.
senior-fullstack
davila7
Comprehensive fullstack development skill for building complete web applications with React, Next.js, Node.js, GraphQL, and PostgreSQL. Includes project scaffolding, code quality analysis, architecture patterns, and complete tech stack guidance. Use when building new projects, analyzing code quality, implementing design patterns, or setting up development workflows.