System design
A divide-and-conquer wiki of system-design skills for Claude Code — reason about scalable systems, don't memorize architectures.
npx -y skills add proyecto26/system-design-skills --skill system-designAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
This skill should be used when the user asks to "design a system", "design <a product>" (e.g. "design WhatsApp", "design a URL shortener", "design a news feed"), "high-level architecture for…", "how would you architect…", "system design interview", or wants to scope, diagram, and justify a backend/distributed-system design. It runs a reasoning loop — clarify, estimate, design, weigh trade-offs, stress-test, iterate — and routes to focused building-block skills. Use it whenever a request is an open-ended design problem, even if the user doesn't say "system design".
SKILL.md
9.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
System Design (orchestrator)
Drive an open-ended design problem from a vague prompt to a justified, stress-tested architecture — by reasoning, not by recalling a diagram. This skill owns the method and the routing; the actual component recipes live in focused building-block skills it pulls in as needed.
The single most important idea, from which everything here follows:
Do not memorize architectures; learn the forces that shape them. There is no single correct solution — success depends on the assumptions you make explicit.
A design that works for 1,000 users may fail at 1,000,000. Treat every architecture as a hypothesis that holds until a constraint changes, and be ready to redraw it calmly when one does.
The reasoning loop
Work this loop out loud. It is a loop, not a checklist — late steps routinely send you back to early ones, and that is the point.
- Clarify requirements — turn the vague prompt into functional
requirements, non-functional constraints, and an explicit out of scope.
Scope to a few core features; say so. → skill
requirements-scoping - Estimate scale — back-of-the-envelope QPS, storage, bandwidth, read/write
ratio. Numbers decide the design; "high traffic" does not. → skill
back-of-the-envelope - Propose a high-level design — sketch the boxes and arrows (clients, LB,
services, stores, caches, queues, CDN) and the user-facing API. Get buy-in
before going deep. → skill
api-design, plus the building blocks below. - Evaluate trade-offs — for every major choice, state what it solves, what
it worsens, and what would make you change it. Never name a tool without
this. → reference
tradeoff-framework.md - Stress-test failure modes — find single points of failure, decide the
degradation story, plan recovery. Assume every component breaks. → skill
resilience-failure - Iterate / deep-dive — pick the most interesting or fragile component and go deep; let new constraints ("what if writes 10×?", "lose a region?") drive a redesign of the affected part.
These six steps are the same four activities the GUIDE names —
ask refining questions → handle the data → discuss components → discuss
trade-offs — with estimation and failure-testing made explicit. See
references/reasoning-loop.md for the full walk-through and time budgeting.
Routing to building blocks
This plugin is a wiki of composable parts. As each concern comes up in the loop, invoke the focused skill (via the Skill tool) rather than reconstructing its recipe from memory — load it so the options, trade-off table, behavior under stress, and cloud-provider variants come from the skill itself. That invocation is how composition works at runtime: a bare skill name below is a skill to trigger, not a file to read. Invoke each as its concern becomes active:
| When the problem turns to… | Use skill |
|---|---|
| What features / constraints / scope? | requirements-scoping |
| How many QPS, how much storage, how many servers? | back-of-the-envelope |
| Endpoints, request/response, pagination, idempotency | api-design |
| Monolith vs microservices, service boundaries, gateway, discovery | service-decomposition |
| SQL vs NoSQL, schema, indexing, sharding, replication | data-storage |
| What to cache, eviction, invalidation, hot keys | caching |
| Distributing traffic, L4/L7, health checks | load-balancing |
| Async work, queues vs streams, delivery guarantees | messaging-streaming |
| CAP, consistency models, quorum, consensus, hashing | consistency-coordination |
| Fault tolerance, circuit breakers, degradation, rate limiting | resilience-failure |
| Static/media delivery, edge, geo-routing | content-delivery |
| How the design evolves with 10×/100× growth | scaling-evolution |
| How clients resolve the service, geo/failover routing | dns |
| Unique IDs at scale (Snowflake/UUID/ticket) | sequencer |
| Storing large/unstructured objects (images, video, files) | blob-store |
| Metrics/logs/traces, health checks, SLOs, alerting | observability |
| High-volume log collection/shipping/retention | distributed-logging |
| Full-text search, inverted index, autocomplete | distributed-search |
| Background / scheduled / recurring jobs | task-scheduling |
| Counting likes/views at huge write rates | sharded-counters |
| Drawing/visualizing the architecture | architecture-diagram |
Full descriptions, the bottom-up layering, and "which block answers which
question" are in references/building-blocks-index.md (the canonical 21-block
catalog). Trigger a block directly when the user asks about just that part — the
orchestrator is not required for every question.
Guardrails: the ways designs fail
The GUIDE catalogs ten failure modes. They are not about wrong answers; they are
about wrong signals. Keep these reflexes (full list and antidotes in
references/failure-modes.md):
- Clarify before designing. Rushing to a solution signals memorization.
- Quantify before choosing. Convert "heavy traffic" into numbers first.
- Justify every component. Three questions per choice: solves / worsens / when-to-change. "Industry standard" is not a justification.
- Open building blocks, don't name them. Know how a cache, queue, or DB behaves under stress — not just what it is called.
- Design for failure. "Add more retries" usually amplifies an outage.
- Make interfaces concrete. If you can't write the request, response, and primary key, the diagram is guesswork.
- Treat the architecture as a hypothesis. If a small constraint change collapses the whole design, it was memorized, not reasoned.
Collaborate; do not present
A design discussion is a working session, not a lecture. Propose, invite the
critique, and adapt in real time. When a constraint changes, name which earlier
assumption it invalidates and redesign that part — defending a sunk design is a
worse signal than a flawed first idea. See references/collaboration-playbook.md
for how to narrate, handle curveballs, and pivot.
When requirements are genuinely ambiguous and the answer changes the design, ask the user a clarifying question rather than guessing silently.
Producing the design
- Capture scope in
assets/requirements-template.md(functional / non-functional / out-of-scope / assumptions). - Write up the design with
assets/design-doc-template.md— it threads the reasoning loop, so the trade-offs and failure story are first-class, not footnotes. - Diagram with the in-plugin
architecture-diagramskill — a self-contained dark-theme HTML+SVG generator that ships in this plugin (no external dependency). A quick ASCII sketch is fine for early thinking; render properly once the design is clear. Seereferences/diagramming.mdfor what to draw at each step and how to specify a diagram to that skill. - Persist it so the work survives the conversation: write the requirements and
design doc to a file (suggest
docs/design/<system>.md; ask the user where if unsure). Keep trade-off exploration and constraint back-and-forth in the conversation; commit the settled artifacts (scope, design, key decisions, data model, diagram) to the file. - Score & diagnose before wrapping: rate the design with the quality bar and
run the Quick Diagnostic in
references/failure-modes.md, and state the weakest dimension + what would raise it.
Running it as a workflow
Two entry points drive this skill as a repeatable process:
/design <system>— the slash command that runs the full loop on a problem.system-design-orchestrator— the agent the command dispatches to; it loads this skill, then invokes the building-block skills as each concern arises.
Both compose the same blocks listed above — invoke a block skill when its concern is active rather than reconstructing its recipe from memory.
References
references/reasoning-loop.md— the six-step loop in depth, with the news-feed walk-through and 45-minute time budget. Read when running a full design.references/failure-modes.md— the ten failure modes and their antidotes. Read to self-check a design or diagnose why one isn't landing.references/tradeoff-framework.md— the solves/worsens/when-to-change method and common axis trade-offs (latency↔throughput, consistency↔availability, cost↔complexity). Read at step 4.references/building-blocks-index.md— the full wiki index: every block, what it answers, and how blocks combine. Read to route.references/collaboration-playbook.md— narrating, handling curveballs, pivoting on constraint changes. Read when the discussion gets adversarial.references/diagramming.md— what to draw at each loop step and how to specify a diagram to thearchitecture-diagramskill. Read when drawing.references/worked-example-news-feed.md— one end-to-end pass of the loop, shown as reasoning (not a template to memorize).
Assets
assets/requirements-template.md— functional / non-functional / scope / assumptions capture.assets/design-doc-template.md— a design write-up structured around the reasoning loop.