Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

nw-sd-patterns-advanced

Advanced distributed patterns - event sourcing, CQRS, saga, stream processing, append-only log, exactly-once delivery, sequencer, double-entry ledger, erasure coding, order book, watermarks

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Advanced Distributed Patterns

Event Sourcing

Problem: need audit trail, state reconstruction, temporal queries.

Core idea: store every state change as immutable event, not current state.

Events: [WalletCreated: balance=0] [Deposited: +100] [Transferred: -30] [Deposited: +50]
Current state: 0 + 100 - 30 + 50 = 120

Benefits: complete audit trail | temporal queries ("balance on Jan 15?") | rebuild state from scratch | debug by replay | event-driven architecture

Challenges: computing state requires replaying all events -- use snapshots | schema evolution (events immutable) | store grows indefinitely -- compaction/archiving | eventual consistency for read models

Snapshots: periodically save computed state | current state = latest snapshot + events after it | trade-off: recovery speed vs storage

Used in: payment systems, banking, trading platforms, audit-critical systems

CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation)

Problem: read and write models have different optimization needs.

Architecture: Commands -> Write Model (normalized, consistency) -> events/CDC -> Read Model (denormalized, query-optimized) <- Queries

When: very different read/write patterns | read model needs heavy denormalization | different scaling for reads vs writes | paired with Event Sourcing

Trade-offs: eventual consistency between models | increased complexity (two models) | sync lag

Saga Pattern

Problem: distributed transactions across services without 2PC.

Core idea: sequence of local transactions, each with compensating action.

Choreography Saga

Each service listens for events and acts | no central coordinator | simpler but harder to track/debug

Orchestration Saga

Central orchestrator coordinates sequence | more control, easier to reason about | orchestrator is SPOF

Example -- money transfer: 1. Debit A $100 -> success | 2. Credit B $100 -> FAIL | 3. Compensate: credit A back $100

TCC variant (Try-Confirm/Cancel): Try: reserve resources | Confirm: finalize | Cancel: release. Better for inventory/booking.

Trade-offs: no ACID across services | compensating actions must be idempotent | temporary inconsistency visible | complex failure scenarios

Stream Processing

Windowing: Tumbling (fixed, non-overlapping) | Sliding (fixed, overlapping) | Session (gap-based, closes after inactivity)

Processing guarantees: at-most-once (fire-and-forget, may lose) | at-least-once (retry, may duplicate) | exactly-once (hardest, checkpointing + idempotent sinks)

Checkpointing: periodically save processor state | on failure restart from checkpoint | Flink: barrier-based (Chandy-Lamport)

Backpressure: consumer slower than producer | buffer, drop, or slow producer | Kafka handles naturally (consumer pulls at own pace)

Append-Only Log (Kafka-style)

Structure: segments of sequential offsets | Segment 0: [0..999] | Segment 1: [1000..1999]

Why fast: sequential writes only (saturates disk) | OS page cache for reads | zero-copy (sendfile) disk-to-network | batch writes amortize syscalls

Retention: time-based (delete old segments) | size-based (cap total) | compaction (keep latest per key)

Exactly-Once Delivery

True exactly-once is theoretically impossible. Achieve effectively-once through:

Idempotent producer: sequence number per message, broker deduplicates | Kafka supports natively

Transactional processing: read -> process -> write output + commit offset atomically | crash mid-tx -> abort -> replay

Idempotent consumer: track processed message IDs | check before processing, skip if seen | DB unique constraint or dedup cache

End-to-end: idempotent producer + transactional processing + idempotent consumer

Sequencer Pattern

Problem: multiple inputs need deterministic ordered processing.

All events pass through single sequencer | assigns monotonic sequence number | downstream processes in order | deterministic: same sequence = same state

Properties: single-threaded (ordering guarantee) | append to durable log | throughput limited -- shard by entity (per-symbol in exchange)

Recovery: standby reads same log | on primary failure: standby continues | downstream replays from last processed sequence

Used in: stock exchanges, matching engines, event sourcing

Double-Entry Ledger

Rule: every transaction produces exactly two entries -- debit and credit of equal amount.

Transaction: A pays $100 to B
Entry 1: DEBIT  A $100
Entry 2: CREDIT B $100
Invariant: SUM(debits) = SUM(credits) -- always

Immutable entries (corrections via counter-entries) | balance = SUM(credits) - SUM(debits) | self-balancing: errors immediately detectable | regulatory requirement for financial systems

Reconciliation

Export records from each system | match by transaction_id | identify: missing records, amount mismatches, status discrepancies | alert on mismatches

Schedule: T+1 (most common) | real-time (critical systems) | monthly full balance

Erasure Coding

Problem: high durability without 3x storage overhead.

Split data into k data + m parity chunks (Reed-Solomon) | store k+m across nodes | any k of k+m can reconstruct

Example (4+2): 6 chunks total, 1.5x overhead (vs 3x for triple replication), tolerates 2 failures

Trade-offs: storage efficient | higher CPU for encode/decode | higher read latency (multiple nodes) | expensive repair

Used in: S3, HDFS, Azure Storage, Google Colossus

Time-Series Data Management

Write: append-only, batch, compress (delta-of-delta timestamps, XOR values)

Storage tiering: Hot (<24h, raw, memory/SSD) | Warm (1-30d, 1-min aggregates, SSD/HDD) | Cold (>30d, 1-hour aggregates, HDD/object)

Downsampling: reduce resolution over time, keep aggregates (min, max, avg, p99)

Map Tile Rendering

Tile pyramid: zoom 0 = 1 tile, zoom N = 4^N tiles, max ~21 (~0.3m/pixel)

Approaches: pre-render (offline, static files) | dynamic (on-the-fly from vector data) | hybrid (popular zooms pre-rendered)

Vector tiles (modern): send geometry + styling to client, client renders | smaller, flexible, smooth zoom | CDN-perfect (static URLs)

Order Book and Matching Engine

Data structure: buy side = max-heap (highest price first) | sell side = min-heap (lowest first) | at each price: FIFO queue

Matching: new buy at 107 matches sell at 106 (best ask) | price-time priority | partial fills stay in book

Latency techniques: single-threaded per symbol (no locks) | pre-allocated memory pools (no GC) | kernel bypass (DPDK) | lock-free ring buffers | colocation

Watermarks (Stream Processing)

Concept: watermark W(t) asserts "all events with timestamp <= t have arrived"

Window closes when watermark passes end time | events after watermark = "late events"

Handling late: drop (simplest) | side output (separate stream) | allowed lateness (keep window open) | retracting results

Strategies: perfect (rare) | heuristic (estimate + buffer) | tight = low latency but may miss events | loose = higher latency but more complete

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

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.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nWave-ai/nWave621Updated Sep 16, 2026

Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

nWave-ai/nWave621Updated Sep 16, 2026

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.

nWave-ai/nWave621Updated Sep 16, 2026

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.

nWave-ai/nWave621Updated Sep 16, 2026

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.

nWave-ai/nWave621Updated Sep 16, 2026

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.

nWave-ai/nWave621Updated Sep 16, 2026

See all skills by nWave-ai

Report a problem with this skill