Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
开发external-servicegithub未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

system-design-patterns系统设计模式

Agent Skill

用于辅助界面设计、视觉规范、排版、配色、布局和交互体验优化。它适合让 Agent 根据产品场景整理页面结构、生成 UI 方案、检查视觉一致性或改进组件层级。使用时需要结合现有品牌、设计系统和用户任务,不应只堆装饰元素;涉及真实页面改动时,应通过截图或浏览器预览检查文本溢出、对齐和响应式表现。

总安装

618

周安装

26

GitHub Stars

21

下载量

216
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:system-design-patterns(系统设计模式)
来源仓库:https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts
仓库路径:skills/system-design-patterns
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts --skill system-design-patterns
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts --skill system-design-patterns

简介

用于辅助界面设计、视觉规范和交互体验优化。system-design-patterns 属于开发类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

  • 适合整理页面结构、生成 UI 方案或检查视觉一致性。
  • 使用时需结合品牌规范、设计系统和用户任务进行定制。
  • 涉及真实页面改动时应通过截图或浏览器预览验证表现。
  • 建议避免堆砌装饰元素,注重组件层级和功能实用性。

SKILL.md

System Design Patterns

Design scalable, reliable, and performant systems with proven patterns.

When to Use

  • Designing new systems or features
  • Evaluating architecture trade-offs
  • Planning for scale
  • Improving system reliability
  • Making infrastructure decisions

Core Principles

CAP Theorem

PropertyMeaningTrade-off
ConsistencyAll nodes see the same dataHigher latency
AvailabilitySystem responds to every requestMay return stale data
Partition ToleranceSystem works despite network failuresMust sacrifice C or A

Choose 2:

  • CP: Banking, inventory (consistency critical)
  • AP: Social media, caching (availability critical)
  • CA: Single-node systems only (no network partitions)

ACID vs BASE

ACID (Traditional RDBMS)BASE (Distributed)
AtomicityBasically Available
ConsistencySoft state
IsolationEventually consistent
Durability

Scalability Patterns

Horizontal vs Vertical Scaling

Vertical Scaling (Scale Up)          Horizontal Scaling (Scale Out)
┌─────────────────────────┐         ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐
│                         │         │      │ │      │ │      │
│     Bigger Server       │    vs   │Server│ │Server│ │Server│
│                         │         │      │ │      │ │      │
│ More CPU, RAM, Storage  │         │      │ │      │ │      │
└─────────────────────────┘         └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘

Pros:                               Pros:
- Simple to implement               - Near-infinite scale
- No code changes                   - Fault tolerant
- Lower operational complexity      - Cost effective at scale

Cons:                               Cons:
- Hardware limits                   - Distributed complexity
- Single point of failure           - Data consistency challenges
- Expensive at scale                - More operational overhead

Load Balancing Strategies

// Strategy selection based on use case

public enum LoadBalancingStrategy
{
    // Simple, stateless services
    RoundRobin,

    // Varying server capacities
    WeightedRoundRobin,

    // Session affinity needed
    IpHash,

    // Optimal resource utilization
    LeastConnections,

    // Latency-sensitive applications
    LeastResponseTime,

    // Geographic distribution
    GeographicBased
}
StrategyUse CaseTrade-off
Round RobinStateless, homogeneousNo health awareness
WeightedDifferent server sizesManual configuration
IP HashSession stickinessUneven distribution
Least ConnectionsLong-lived connectionsOverhead tracking
GeographicGlobal usersComplexity

Database Scaling

Read Replicas

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Application                       │
└──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
                       │
        ┌──────────────┴──────────────┐
        │                             │
        ▼                             ▼
┌───────────────┐           ┌─────────────────┐
│  Primary DB   │──────────►│  Read Replica 1 │
│  (Writes)     │    Async  ├─────────────────┤
│               │──────────►│  Read Replica 2 │
└───────────────┘    Repl   └─────────────────┘
                                    ▲
                                    │
                              Read Queries
// Read/Write splitting in ABP
public class PatientAppService : ApplicationService
{
    private readonly IReadOnlyRepository<Patient, Guid> _readRepository;
    private readonly IRepository<Patient, Guid> _writeRepository;

    // Reads go to replicas
    public async Task<PatientDto> GetAsync(Guid id)
    {
        var patient = await _readRepository.GetAsync(id);
        return ObjectMapper.Map<Patient, PatientDto>(patient);
    }

    // Writes go to primary
    public async Task<PatientDto> CreateAsync(CreatePatientDto input)
    {
        var patient = new Patient(GuidGenerator.Create(), input.Name);
        await _writeRepository.InsertAsync(patient);
        return ObjectMapper.Map<Patient, PatientDto>(patient);
    }
}

Database Sharding

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                     Shard Router                            │
│         (Routes queries based on shard key)                 │
└────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬─────────────────┘
             │              │              │
             ▼              ▼              ▼
      ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐
      │  Shard 1  │  │  Shard 2  │  │  Shard 3  │
      │  A - H    │  │  I - P    │  │  Q - Z    │
      │ (Users)   │  │ (Users)   │  │ (Users)   │
      └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘
Sharding StrategyProsCons
Range-basedSimple, range queries workHotspots possible
Hash-basedEven distributionRange queries need scatter-gather
Directory-basedFlexibleLookup overhead, SPOF
GeographicData localityCross-region queries slow

Caching Patterns

Cache-Aside (Lazy Loading)

public class PatientService
{
    private readonly IDistributedCache _cache;
    private readonly IPatientRepository _repository;

    public async Task<PatientDto> GetAsync(Guid id)
    {
        var cacheKey = $"patient:{id}";

        // 1. Check cache
        var cached = await _cache.GetStringAsync(cacheKey);
        if (cached != null)
        {
            return JsonSerializer.Deserialize<PatientDto>(cached);
        }

        // 2. Cache miss - load from DB
        var patient = await _repository.GetAsync(id);
        var dto = ObjectMapper.Map<Patient, PatientDto>(patient);

        // 3. Populate cache
        await _cache.SetStringAsync(
            cacheKey,
            JsonSerializer.Serialize(dto),
            new DistributedCacheEntryOptions
            {
                AbsoluteExpirationRelativeToNow = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(10)
            });

        return dto;
    }

    public async Task UpdateAsync(Guid id, UpdatePatientDto input)
    {
        // Update database
        var patient = await _repository.GetAsync(id);
        patient.Update(input.Name, input.Email);
        await _repository.UpdateAsync(patient);

        // Invalidate cache
        await _cache.RemoveAsync($"patient:{id}");
    }
}

Write-Through Cache

public async Task<PatientDto> CreateAsync(CreatePatientDto input)
{
    // 1. Write to database
    var patient = new Patient(GuidGenerator.Create(), input.Name);
    await _repository.InsertAsync(patient);

    // 2. Write to cache synchronously
    var dto = ObjectMapper.Map<Patient, PatientDto>(patient);
    await _cache.SetStringAsync(
        $"patient:{patient.Id}",
        JsonSerializer.Serialize(dto),
        new DistributedCacheEntryOptions
        {
            AbsoluteExpirationRelativeToNow = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(10)
        });

    return dto;
}

Cache Strategies Comparison

PatternConsistencyPerformanceUse Case
Cache-AsideEventualRead-heavyUser profiles
Write-ThroughStrongWrite + ReadFinancial data
Write-BehindEventualWrite-heavyAnalytics, logs
Read-ThroughEventualRead-heavyReference data

Reliability Patterns

Circuit Breaker

// Using Polly
public class ExternalServiceClient
{
    private readonly HttpClient _client;
    private readonly AsyncCircuitBreakerPolicy _circuitBreaker;

    public ExternalServiceClient(HttpClient client)
    {
        _client = client;
        _circuitBreaker = Policy
            .Handle<HttpRequestException>()
            .CircuitBreakerAsync(
                exceptionsAllowedBeforeBreaking: 5,
                durationOfBreak: TimeSpan.FromSeconds(30),
                onBreak: (ex, duration) =>
                    Log.Warning("Circuit opened for {Duration}s", duration.TotalSeconds),
                onReset: () =>
                    Log.Information("Circuit closed"),
                onHalfOpen: () =>
                    Log.Information("Circuit half-open, testing...")
            );
    }

    public async Task<T> GetAsync<T>(string endpoint)
    {
        return await _circuitBreaker.ExecuteAsync(async () =>
        {
            var response = await _client.GetAsync(endpoint);
            response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();
            return await response.Content.ReadFromJsonAsync<T>();
        });
    }
}

Retry with Exponential Backoff

var retryPolicy = Policy
    .Handle<HttpRequestException>()
    .WaitAndRetryAsync(
        retryCount: 3,
        sleepDurationProvider: attempt =>
            TimeSpan.FromSeconds(Math.Pow(2, attempt)), // 2, 4, 8 seconds
        onRetry: (ex, delay, attempt, context) =>
            Log.Warning("Retry {Attempt} after {Delay}s: {Error}",
                attempt, delay.TotalSeconds, ex.Message)
    );

Bulkhead Pattern

// Isolate failures to prevent cascade
var bulkhead = Policy.BulkheadAsync(
    maxParallelization: 10,      // Max concurrent executions
    maxQueuingActions: 20,       // Max queued requests
    onBulkheadRejectedAsync: context =>
    {
        Log.Warning("Bulkhead rejected request");
        return Task.CompletedTask;
    }
);

Event-Driven Architecture

Message Queue Pattern

┌─────────┐    ┌─────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐
│ Service │───►│   Message   │───►│  Consumer   │
│    A    │    │    Queue    │    │  Service B  │
└─────────┘    │             │    └─────────────┘
               │  (RabbitMQ, │
               │   Kafka,    │    ┌─────────────┐
               │   Azure SB) │───►│  Consumer   │
               └─────────────┘    │  Service C  │
                                  └─────────────┘

Event Sourcing

// Store events, not state
public class PatientAggregate
{
    private readonly List<IDomainEvent> _events = new();

    public Guid Id { get; private set; }
    public string Name { get; private set; }
    public PatientStatus Status { get; private set; }

    public void Apply(PatientCreated @event)
    {
        Id = @event.PatientId;
        Name = @event.Name;
        Status = PatientStatus.Active;
        _events.Add(@event);
    }

    public void Apply(PatientNameChanged @event)
    {
        Name = @event.NewName;
        _events.Add(@event);
    }

    // Rebuild state from events
    public static PatientAggregate FromEvents(IEnumerable<IDomainEvent> events)
    {
        var patient = new PatientAggregate();
        foreach (var @event in events)
        {
            patient.Apply((dynamic)@event);
        }
        return patient;
    }
}

Quick Reference: Design Trade-offs

DecisionOption AOption BConsider
StorageSQLNoSQLData structure, consistency needs
CachingRedisIn-memoryDistributed needs, size
CommunicationSync (HTTP)Async (Queue)Coupling, latency tolerance
ConsistencyStrongEventualBusiness requirements
ScalingVerticalHorizontalCost, complexity, limits

System Design Checklist

  • Requirements: Functional + Non-functional defined
  • Scale: Expected users, requests/sec, data volume
  • Availability: Uptime target (99.9% = 8.76h downtime/year)
  • Latency: P50, P95, P99 targets
  • Data: Storage type, retention, backup strategy
  • Caching: What to cache, invalidation strategy
  • Security: Auth, encryption, compliance
  • Monitoring: Metrics, logging, alerting
  • Failure modes: What happens when X fails?
  • Cost: Infrastructure, operational overhead

Related Skills

  • technical-design-patterns - Document designs
  • api-design-principles - API architecture
  • distributed-events-advanced - Event patterns

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

35.63%
按下载量换算77

Claude

28.68%
按下载量换算62

Cursor

17.3%
按下载量换算37

Gemini CLI

9.97%
按下载量换算22

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

external-service

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills