nWave/skills/nw-sd-patterns-advanced/SKILL.md
Advanced distributed patterns - event sourcing, CQRS, saga, stream processing, append-only log, exactly-once delivery, sequencer, double-entry ledger, erasure coding, order book, watermarks
npx skillsauth add nwave-ai/nwave nw-sd-patterns-advancedInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
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
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
Problem: distributed transactions across services without 2PC.
Core idea: sequence of local transactions, each with compensating action.
Each service listens for events and acts | no central coordinator | simpler but harder to track/debug
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
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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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
testing
Acceptance test creation methodology for the DISTILL wave. Domain knowledge for the acceptance designer agent: port-to-port principle, prior wave reading, wave-decision reconciliation, graceful degradation, and document back-propagation.
development
Cross-agent collaboration protocols, workflow handoff patterns, and commit message formats for TDD/Mikado/refactoring workflows
development
Creates a phased roadmap.json for a feature goal with acceptance criteria and TDD steps. Use when planning implementation steps before execution.
testing
Acceptance test creation methodology for the DISTILL wave. Domain knowledge for the acceptance designer agent: port-to-port principle, prior wave reading, wave-decision reconciliation, graceful degradation, and document back-propagation.