Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

system-design-patterns(系统设计模式)

用于辅助界面设计、视觉规范、排版、配色、布局和交互体验优化。它适合让 Agent 根据产品场景整理页面结构、生成 UI 方案、检查视觉一致性或改进组件层级。使用时需要结合现有品牌、设计系统和用户任务,不应只堆装饰元素;涉及真实页面改动时,应通过截图或浏览器预览检查文本溢出、对齐和响应式表现。

system-design-patterns 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为调用外部服务;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 15,217。

总安装 618周安装 26GitHub Stars 21下载 216核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:system-design-patterns(系统设计模式)
来源仓库:https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts
仓库路径:skills/system-design-patterns
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts --skill system-design-patterns
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts --skill system-design-patterns

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

用于辅助界面设计、视觉规范和交互体验优化。system-design-patterns 属于开发类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。适合整理页面结构、生成 UI 方案或检查视觉一致性。使用时需结合品牌规范、设计系统和用户任务进行定制。涉及真实页面改动时应通过截图或浏览器预览验证表现。

建议避免堆砌装饰元素,注重组件层级和功能实用性。

来源仓库内路径:skills/system-design-patterns

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts --skill system-…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要调用外部服务,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

system-design-patterns 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/thapaliyabikendra/ai-artifacts --skill system-design-pat…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

system-design-patterns 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

system-design-patterns 需要什么权限?

权限级别是调用外部服务。该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

system-design-patterns 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

system-design-patterns 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 618 次,近一周安装 26 次,下载 216 次,GitHub 21 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

system-design-patterns 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
system-design-patterns

系统设计模式 · 本页

61821调用外部服务未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

System Design Patterns

Design scalable, reliable, and performant systems with proven patterns.

When to Use

  • Designing new systems or features
  • Evaluating architecture trade-offs
  • Planning for scale
  • Improving system reliability
  • Making infrastructure decisions

Core Principles

CAP Theorem

PropertyMeaningTrade-off
ConsistencyAll nodes see the same dataHigher latency
AvailabilitySystem responds to every requestMay return stale data
Partition ToleranceSystem works despite network failuresMust sacrifice C or A

Choose 2:

  • CP: Banking, inventory (consistency critical)
  • AP: Social media, caching (availability critical)
  • CA: Single-node systems only (no network partitions)

ACID vs BASE

ACID (Traditional RDBMS)BASE (Distributed)
AtomicityBasically Available
ConsistencySoft state
IsolationEventually consistent
Durability

Scalability Patterns

Horizontal vs Vertical Scaling

Vertical Scaling (Scale Up)          Horizontal Scaling (Scale Out)
┌─────────────────────────┐         ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐
│                         │         │      │ │      │ │      │
│     Bigger Server       │    vs   │Server│ │Server│ │Server│
│                         │         │      │ │      │ │      │
│ More CPU, RAM, Storage  │         │      │ │      │ │      │
└─────────────────────────┘         └──────┘ └──────┘ └──────┘

Pros:                               Pros:
- Simple to implement               - Near-infinite scale
- No code changes                   - Fault tolerant
- Lower operational complexity      - Cost effective at scale

Cons:                               Cons:
- Hardware limits                   - Distributed complexity
- Single point of failure           - Data consistency challenges
- Expensive at scale                - More operational overhead

Load Balancing Strategies

// Strategy selection based on use case

public enum LoadBalancingStrategy
{
    // Simple, stateless services
    RoundRobin,

    // Varying server capacities
    WeightedRoundRobin,

    // Session affinity needed
    IpHash,

    // Optimal resource utilization
    LeastConnections,

    // Latency-sensitive applications
    LeastResponseTime,

    // Geographic distribution
    GeographicBased
}
StrategyUse CaseTrade-off
Round RobinStateless, homogeneousNo health awareness
WeightedDifferent server sizesManual configuration
IP HashSession stickinessUneven distribution
Least ConnectionsLong-lived connectionsOverhead tracking
GeographicGlobal usersComplexity

Database Scaling

Read Replicas
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Application                       │
└──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
                       │
        ┌──────────────┴──────────────┐
        │                             │
        ▼                             ▼
┌───────────────┐           ┌─────────────────┐
│  Primary DB   │──────────►│  Read Replica 1 │
│  (Writes)     │    Async  ├─────────────────┤
│               │──────────►│  Read Replica 2 │
└───────────────┘    Repl   └─────────────────┘
                                    ▲
                                    │
                              Read Queries
// Read/Write splitting in ABP
public class PatientAppService : ApplicationService
{
    private readonly IReadOnlyRepository<Patient, Guid> _readRepository;
    private readonly IRepository<Patient, Guid> _writeRepository;

    // Reads go to replicas
    public async Task<PatientDto> GetAsync(Guid id)
    {
        var patient = await _readRepository.GetAsync(id);
        return ObjectMapper.Map<Patient, PatientDto>(patient);
    }

    // Writes go to primary
    public async Task<PatientDto> CreateAsync(CreatePatientDto input)
    {
        var patient = new Patient(GuidGenerator.Create(), input.Name);
        await _writeRepository.InsertAsync(patient);
        return ObjectMapper.Map<Patient, PatientDto>(patient);
    }
}
Database Sharding
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                     Shard Router                            │
│         (Routes queries based on shard key)                 │
└────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬─────────────────┘
             │              │              │
             ▼              ▼              ▼
      ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐
      │  Shard 1  │  │  Shard 2  │  │  Shard 3  │
      │  A - H    │  │  I - P    │  │  Q - Z    │
      │ (Users)   │  │ (Users)   │  │ (Users)   │
      └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘
Sharding StrategyProsCons
Range-basedSimple, range queries workHotspots possible
Hash-basedEven distributionRange queries need scatter-gather
Directory-basedFlexibleLookup overhead, SPOF
GeographicData localityCross-region queries slow

Caching Patterns

Cache-Aside (Lazy Loading)

public class PatientService
{
    private readonly IDistributedCache _cache;
    private readonly IPatientRepository _repository;

    public async Task<PatientDto> GetAsync(Guid id)
    {
        var cacheKey = $"patient:{id}";

        // 1. Check cache
        var cached = await _cache.GetStringAsync(cacheKey);
        if (cached != null)
        {
            return JsonSerializer.Deserialize<PatientDto>(cached);
        }

        // 2. Cache miss - load from DB
        var patient = await _repository.GetAsync(id);
        var dto = ObjectMapper.Map<Patient, PatientDto>(patient);

        // 3. Populate cache
        await _cache.SetStringAsync(
            cacheKey,
            JsonSerializer.Serialize(dto),
            new DistributedCacheEntryOptions
            {
                AbsoluteExpirationRelativeToNow = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(10)
            });

        return dto;
    }

    public async Task UpdateAsync(Guid id, UpdatePatientDto input)
    {
        // Update database
        var patient = await _repository.GetAsync(id);
        patient.Update(input.Name, input.Email);
        await _repository.UpdateAsync(patient);

        // Invalidate cache
        await _cache.RemoveAsync($"patient:{id}");
    }
}

Write-Through Cache

public async Task<PatientDto> CreateAsync(CreatePatientDto input)
{
    // 1. Write to database
    var patient = new Patient(GuidGenerator.Create(), input.Name);
    await _repository.InsertAsync(patient);

    // 2. Write to cache synchronously
    var dto = ObjectMapper.Map<Patient, PatientDto>(patient);
    await _cache.SetStringAsync(
        $"patient:{patient.Id}",
        JsonSerializer.Serialize(dto),
        new DistributedCacheEntryOptions
        {
            AbsoluteExpirationRelativeToNow = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(10)
        });

    return dto;
}

Cache Strategies Comparison

PatternConsistencyPerformanceUse Case
Cache-AsideEventualRead-heavyUser profiles
Write-ThroughStrongWrite + ReadFinancial data
Write-BehindEventualWrite-heavyAnalytics, logs
Read-ThroughEventualRead-heavyReference data

Reliability Patterns

Circuit Breaker

// Using Polly
public class ExternalServiceClient
{
    private readonly HttpClient _client;
    private readonly AsyncCircuitBreakerPolicy _circuitBreaker;

    public ExternalServiceClient(HttpClient client)
    {
        _client = client;
        _circuitBreaker = Policy
            .Handle<HttpRequestException>()
            .CircuitBreakerAsync(
                exceptionsAllowedBeforeBreaking: 5,
                durationOfBreak: TimeSpan.FromSeconds(30),
                onBreak: (ex, duration) =>
                    Log.Warning("Circuit opened for {Duration}s", duration.TotalSeconds),
                onReset: () =>
                    Log.Information("Circuit closed"),
                onHalfOpen: () =>
                    Log.Information("Circuit half-open, testing...")
            );
    }

    public async Task<T> GetAsync<T>(string endpoint)
    {
        return await _circuitBreaker.ExecuteAsync(async () =>
        {
            var response = await _client.GetAsync(endpoint);
            response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();
            return await response.Content.ReadFromJsonAsync<T>();
        });
    }
}

Retry with Exponential Backoff

var retryPolicy = Policy
    .Handle<HttpRequestException>()
    .WaitAndRetryAsync(
        retryCount: 3,
        sleepDurationProvider: attempt =>
            TimeSpan.FromSeconds(Math.Pow(2, attempt)), // 2, 4, 8 seconds
        onRetry: (ex, delay, attempt, context) =>
            Log.Warning("Retry {Attempt} after {Delay}s: {Error}",
                attempt, delay.TotalSeconds, ex.Message)
    );

Bulkhead Pattern

// Isolate failures to prevent cascade
var bulkhead = Policy.BulkheadAsync(
    maxParallelization: 10,      // Max concurrent executions
    maxQueuingActions: 20,       // Max queued requests
    onBulkheadRejectedAsync: context =>
    {
        Log.Warning("Bulkhead rejected request");
        return Task.CompletedTask;
    }
);

Event-Driven Architecture

Message Queue Pattern

┌─────────┐    ┌─────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐
│ Service │───►│   Message   │───►│  Consumer   │
│    A    │    │    Queue    │    │  Service B  │
└─────────┘    │             │    └─────────────┘
               │  (RabbitMQ, │
               │   Kafka,    │    ┌─────────────┐
               │   Azure SB) │───►│  Consumer   │
               └─────────────┘    │  Service C  │
                                  └─────────────┘

Event Sourcing

// Store events, not state
public class PatientAggregate
{
    private readonly List<IDomainEvent> _events = new();

    public Guid Id { get; private set; }
    public string Name { get; private set; }
    public PatientStatus Status { get; private set; }

    public void Apply(PatientCreated @event)
    {
        Id = @event.PatientId;
        Name = @event.Name;
        Status = PatientStatus.Active;
        _events.Add(@event);
    }

    public void Apply(PatientNameChanged @event)
    {
        Name = @event.NewName;
        _events.Add(@event);
    }

    // Rebuild state from events
    public static PatientAggregate FromEvents(IEnumerable<IDomainEvent> events)
    {
        var patient = new PatientAggregate();
        foreach (var @event in events)
        {
            patient.Apply((dynamic)@event);
        }
        return patient;
    }
}

Quick Reference: Design Trade-offs

DecisionOption AOption BConsider
StorageSQLNoSQLData structure, consistency needs
CachingRedisIn-memoryDistributed needs, size
CommunicationSync (HTTP)Async (Queue)Coupling, latency tolerance
ConsistencyStrongEventualBusiness requirements
ScalingVerticalHorizontalCost, complexity, limits

System Design Checklist

  • Requirements: Functional + Non-functional defined
  • Scale: Expected users, requests/sec, data volume
  • Availability: Uptime target (99.9% = 8.76h downtime/year)
  • Latency: P50, P95, P99 targets
  • Data: Storage type, retention, backup strategy
  • Caching: What to cache, invalidation strategy
  • Security: Auth, encryption, compliance
  • Monitoring: Metrics, logging, alerting
  • Failure modes: What happens when X fails?
  • Cost: Infrastructure, operational overhead

Related Skills

  • technical-design-patterns - Document designs
  • api-design-principles - API architecture
  • distributed-events-advanced - Event patterns

平台分布

Codex

35.63%
按下载量换算77

Claude

28.68%
按下载量换算62

Cursor

17.3%
按下载量换算37

Gemini CLI

9.97%
按下载量换算22

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

调用外部服务

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills