/nw-sd-framework
4-step system design framework with back-of-envelope estimation, scaling ladder, and common pitfalls
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-sd-framework --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/nw-sd-framework
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
4-step system design framework with back-of-envelope estimation, scaling ladder, and common pitfalls
SKILL.md
nw-sd-framework.SKILL.mdname: nw-sd-framework
description: 4-step system design framework with back-of-envelope estimation, scaling ladder, and common pitfalls
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
System Design Framework
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.
1. **Load balancer** -- distribute traffic across web servers 2. **Database replication** -- master-slave for read scaling 3. **Cache layer** -- reduce database load (Redis/Memcached) 4. **CDN** -- serve static content from edge 5. **Stateless web tier** -- move session state to shared store 6. **Database sharding** -- horizontal partitioning for write scaling 7. **Message queue** -- decouple components, handle spikes 8. **Logging, metrics, monitoring** -- observability at scale 9. **Multiple data centers** -- geographic redundancy and latency reduction
---
Common Pitfalls
1. **Jumping to solutions** -- design before understanding requirements 2. **Over-engineering** -- adding components for imaginary scale 3. **Ignoring trade-offs** -- every choice has a cost; name it 4. **SPOF blindness** -- always ask "what if this dies?" 5. **Neglecting data** -- the data model drives everything 6. **Forgetting operations** -- a system you can't monitor is one you can't run 7. **Not doing math** -- gut feelings are wrong; estimates keep you honest
Read more
name: nw-sd-framework description: 4-step system design framework with back-of-envelope estimation, scaling ladder, and common pitfalls user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
System Design Framework
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.
1. **Load balancer** -- distribute traffic across web servers 2. **Database replication** -- master-slave for read scaling 3. **Cache layer** -- reduce database load (Redis/Memcached) 4. **CDN** -- serve static content from edge 5. **Stateless web tier** -- move session state to shared store 6. **Database sharding** -- horizontal partitioning for write scaling 7. **Message queue** -- decouple components, handle spikes 8. **Logging, metrics, monitoring** -- observability at scale 9. **Multiple data centers** -- geographic redundancy and latency reduction
---
Common Pitfalls
1. **Jumping to solutions** -- design before understanding requirements 2. **Over-engineering** -- adding components for imaginary scale 3. **Ignoring trade-offs** -- every choice has a cost; name it 4. **SPOF blindness** -- always ask "what if this dies?" 5. **Neglecting data** -- the data model drives everything 6. **Forgetting operations** -- a system you can't monitor is one you can't run 7. **Not doing math** -- gut feelings are wrong; estimates keep you honest
AI agents that guide you from idea to working code, with human judgment at every gate. nWave runs inside Claude Code. It breaks feature delivery into seven waves (discover, diverge, discuss, design, devops, distill, deliver).
Repo: nWave-ai/nWave
Other skills on nwave.
- /nw-ab-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Open skill - /nw-abr-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Open skill - /nw-ad-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton user-centricity, priority validation, observable behavior assertions, traceability coverage, and walking skeleton boundary proof
Open skill - /nw-agent-creation-workflow
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
Open skill - /nw-agent-testing
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
Open skill - /nw-architectural-styles-tradeoffs
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.
Open skill

