Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
4-step system design framework with back-of-envelope estimation, scaling ladder, and common pitfalls
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Every system design follows this structure. Skipping steps is the top mistake.
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)
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)
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
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
| 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 |
| 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
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
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
Each step solves a specific bottleneck. Never introduce a component without articulating which bottleneck it addresses.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.