name: m11-ecosystem
description: "Use when integrating crates or ecosystem questions. Keywords: E0425, E0433, E0603, crate, cargo, dependency, feature flag, workspace, which crate to use, using external C libraries, creating Python extensions, PyO3, wasm, WebAssembly, bindgen, cbindgen, napi-rs, cannot find, private, crate recommendation, best crate for, Cargo.toml, features, crate 推荐, 依赖管理, 特性标志, 工作空间, Python 绑定"
user-invocable: false

Current Dependencies (Auto-Injected)

!grep -A 100 '^\[dependencies\]' Cargo.toml 2>/dev/null | head -30 || echo "No Cargo.toml found"

Ecosystem Integration

Layer 2: Design Choices

Core Question

What's the right crate for this job, and how should it integrate?

Before adding dependencies:
- Is there a standard solution?
- What's the maintenance status?
- What's the API stability?

Integration Decision → Implementation

Thinking Prompt

Before adding a dependency:

1. Is it well-maintained?
2. Recent commits?
3. Active issue response?

4. Breaking changes frequency?

5. What's the scope?

6. Do you need the full crate or just a feature?

7. Can feature flags reduce bloat?

8. How does it integrate?

9. Trait-based or concrete types?
10. Sync or async?
11. What bounds does it require?

Trace Up ↑

To domain constraints (Layer 3):

"Which HTTP framework should I use?"
    ↑ Ask: What are the performance requirements?
    ↑ Check: domain-web (latency, throughput needs)
    ↑ Check: Team expertise (familiarity with framework)

Trace Down ↓

To implementation (Layer 1):

"Integrate external crate"
    ↓ m04-zero-cost: Trait bounds and generics
    ↓ m06-error-handling: Error type compatibility

"FFI integration"
    ↓ unsafe-checker: Safety requirements
    ↓ m12-lifecycle: Resource cleanup

Quick Reference

Language Interop

Cargo Features

Error Code Reference

Crate Selection Criteria

Anti-Patterns

Related Skills