System Design Framework
SkillMedia4-step system design framework with back-of-envelope estimation, scaling ladder, and common pitfalls
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the System Design Framework skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by nwave-ai/nwave in nWave/skills/nw-sd-framework/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
The 4-Step Process
Every system design follows this structure. Skipping steps is the top mistake.
Step 1: Understand the Problem and Establish Design Scope (3-10 min)
Narrow an impossibly broad question into a tractable problem.
Ask about: users and scale | most important features | read/write ratio | non-functional requirements (latency, availability, consistency) | existing infrastructure | special constraints (mobile-first, offline, regulatory)
Produce: functional requirements (3-5 bullets) | non-functional requirements (scale, latency, availability, consistency model) | capacity estimation (QPS, storage, bandwidth)
Red flags if skipped: designing a system nobody asked for | over-engineering for imaginary scale | missing critical constraints (GDPR, real-time)
Step 2: Propose High-Level Design and Get Buy-In (10-15 min)
Sketch the big picture. Validate before diving deep.
Do: draw architecture diagram (clients, servers, databases, caches, queues) | define API contract (REST/GraphQL/gRPC -- key endpoints) | design data model (entities, relationships, access patterns) | walk through 1-2 core use cases end-to-end | get buy-in: "Does this make sense before I go deeper?"
API patterns: RESTful for CRUD-heavy | GraphQL for flexible client queries | gRPC for internal service-to-service | WebSocket/SSE for real-time
Data model: SQL vs NoSQL based on access patterns, not hype | denormalization trade-offs | partitioning key selection (directly impacts scalability)
Step 3: Design Deep Dive (10-25 min)
Go deep on 2-3 components.
Choose: most technically challenging | most interesting trade-offs | bottleneck components (highest load, most failure-prone)
Depth means: specific algorithms (consistent hashing, Bloom filters) | failure modes and handling | scaling strategy per component | data flow with edge cases | monitoring and operational concerns
Step 4: Wrap Up (3-5 min)
Cover: summarize design in 2-3 sentences | identify known bottlenecks | what you'd improve with more time | operational concerns (monitoring, alerting, deployment) | future enhancements
Avoid: introducing entirely new components at this stage | second-guessing your design
Back-of-Envelope Estimation
Powers of 2 Reference
| Power | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 1 Thousand | 1 KB |
| 20 | 1 Million | 1 MB |
| 30 | 1 Billion | 1 GB |
| 40 | 1 Trillion | 1 TB |
| 50 | 1 Quadrillion | 1 PB |
Latency Numbers Every Engineer Should Know
| Operation | Latency |
|---|---|
| L1 cache reference | 0.5 ns |
| L2 cache reference | 7 ns |
| Main memory reference | 100 ns |
| Compress 1KB (Zippy) | 10 us |
| Send 2KB over 1 Gbps | 20 us |
| Read 1 MB from memory | 250 us |
| Datacenter round trip | 500 us |
| Disk seek | 10 ms |
| Read 1 MB from network | 10 ms |
| Read 1 MB from disk | 30 ms |
| CA to Netherlands round trip | 150 ms |
Key takeaways: memory fast, disk slow -- cache aggressively | compress before network send | inter-datacenter trips expensive -- minimize cross-region calls
Common Estimation Patterns
DAU to QPS: QPS = DAU * actions_per_user / 86400 | Peak QPS = QPS * 2 (or *3 for spiky)
Storage: daily = DAU * actions * avg_size | yearly = daily * 365 | 5-year = yearly * 5
Bandwidth: QPS * average_response_size
Servers: Peak QPS / QPS_per_server where CPU-bound ~hundreds | IO-bound with cache ~thousands | static content ~tens of thousands
Estimation Example: Twitter-like Service
150M DAU, 2 tweets/day, 10 reads/day
Write QPS = 150M * 2 / 86400 ~ 3,500
Read QPS = 150M * 10 / 86400 ~ 17,000; Peak ~ 50,000
Storage: 300M tweets * 1KB + 30M media * 500KB ~ 15.3 TB/day
Scaling Ladder
Each step solves a specific bottleneck. Never introduce a component without articulating which bottleneck it addresses.
- Load balancer -- distribute traffic across web servers
- Database replication -- master-slave for read scaling
- Cache layer -- reduce database load (Redis/Memcached)
- CDN -- serve static content from edge
- Stateless web tier -- move session state to shared store
- Database sharding -- horizontal partitioning for write scaling
- Message queue -- decouple components, handle spikes
- Logging, metrics, monitoring -- observability at scale
- Multiple data centers -- geographic redundancy and latency reduction
Common Pitfalls
- Jumping to solutions -- design before understanding requirements
- Over-engineering -- adding components for imaginary scale
- Ignoring trade-offs -- every choice has a cost; name it
- SPOF blindness -- always ask "what if this dies?"
- Neglecting data -- the data model drives everything
- Forgetting operations -- a system you can't monitor is one you can't run
- Not doing math -- gut feelings are wrong; estimates keep you honest
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 610
- Forks
- 64
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
nw-sd-framework- Source
- github.com/nwave-ai/nwave