Distributed Systems Patterns

Distributed Systems Patterns

Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, +256 784 464178.

Use When

• Use when designing or reviewing multi-service, message-driven, or eventually consistent systems. Covers service boundaries, consistency tradeoffs, event workflows, outbox and inbox patterns, sagas, ordering, and idempotency.
• The task needs reusable judgment, domain constraints, or a proven workflow rather than ad hoc advice.

Do Not Use When

• The task is unrelated to distributed-systems-patterns or would be better handled by a more specific companion skill.
• The request only needs a trivial answer and none of this skill's constraints or references materially help.

Required Inputs

• Gather relevant project context, constraints, and the concrete problem to solve; load references only as needed.
• Confirm the desired deliverable: design, code, review, migration plan, audit, or documentation.

Workflow

• Read this SKILL.md first, then load only the referenced deep-dive files that are necessary for the task.
• Apply the ordered guidance, checklists, and decision rules in this skill instead of cherry-picking isolated snippets.
• Produce the deliverable with assumptions, risks, and follow-up work made explicit when they matter.

Quality Standards

• Keep outputs execution-oriented, concise, and aligned with the repository's baseline engineering standards.
• Preserve compatibility with existing project conventions unless the skill explicitly requires a stronger standard.
• Prefer deterministic, reviewable steps over vague advice or tool-specific magic.

Anti-Patterns

• Treating examples as copy-paste truth without checking fit, constraints, or failure modes.
• Loading every reference file by default instead of using progressive disclosure.

Outputs

• A concrete result that fits the task: implementation guidance, review findings, architecture decisions, templates, or generated artifacts.
• Clear assumptions, tradeoffs, or unresolved gaps when the task cannot be completed from available context alone.
• References used, companion skills, or follow-up actions when they materially improve execution.

Evidence Produced

| Category | Artifact | Format | Example | |----------|----------|--------|---------| | Operability | Service consistency and idempotency note | Markdown doc covering chosen consistency model, idempotency keys, and saga sequences | docs/dist/consistency-note-checkout.md | | Operability | Failure-mode catalogue | Markdown doc listing partition, retry, and replay failure modes with mitigations | docs/dist/failure-modes-checkout.md |

References

• Use the references/ directory for deep detail after reading the core workflow below.
• Load references/event-driven-architecture.md for event choreography, event contracts, brokers, and asynchronous workflow design.
• Load references/realtime-systems.md for WebSocket, SSE, pub/sub, and realtime delivery concerns.

Use this skill when a design crosses process, service, queue, or region boundaries. The goal is to keep distributed complexity deliberate and bounded rather than accidental.

Load Order

1. Load world-class-engineering.
2. Load system-architecture-design first for the overall shape.
3. Load this skill only when the system genuinely needs multiple services, asynchronous workflows, or weakly consistent boundaries.

Decision Workflow

1. Justify Distribution

State why distribution is necessary:

• team ownership and release independence
• scaling asymmetry
• fault isolation
• compliance or tenancy isolation
• long-running or bursty workflows

If none of these are strong, prefer a modular monolith.

2. Define Boundaries and Contracts

For each service or asynchronous component, define:

• owned data
• API or event contracts
• consistency expectation
• failure effect on upstream and downstream flows
• observability and ownership requirements

3. Choose Interaction Patterns

Use:

• synchronous calls when the caller needs immediate confirmation
• messaging when work is slow, bursty, or naturally eventual
• outbox and inbox patterns when reliability across boundaries matters
• sagas or compensations when one business workflow spans multiple durable states

4. Design Consistency and Recovery

Make explicit:

• source of truth
• ordering requirements
• deduplication strategy
• reconciliation path
• timeout and retry policy
• compensation or manual repair path

5. Prove the Design

Before calling it production-ready, provide:

• consistency model
• failure-mode examples
• idempotency and replay notes
• contract evolution rules
• operational signals for stuck or divergent workflows

Non-Negotiable Standards

Service Boundaries

• Each service owns its data and rules.
• Do not share databases across services as a convenience.
• Keep contracts narrow and versionable.
• Avoid chatty request chains on critical paths.

Messaging

• Assume at-least-once delivery unless proven otherwise.
• Design consumers to be idempotent and replay-safe.
• Define ordering needs explicitly; unordered by default is safer to assume.
• Include correlation IDs and causation metadata.

Consistency

• Strong consistency has operational cost; use it where business correctness needs it.
• Eventual consistency requires visible user and operator handling.
• If divergence is possible, define reconciliation before shipping.

Sagas and Compensation

• Use compensation when the workflow spans multiple irreversible boundaries.
• Compensation must be explicit, auditable, and tested.
• Never describe a workflow as atomic if it crosses systems that cannot commit atomically.

Deliverables

For distributed-system work, produce:

• service and ownership map
• contract list
• consistency decision table
• event and retry flow notes
• reconciliation or compensation plan
• stuck-workflow and replay detection signals

Review Checklist

• [ ] Distribution is justified by real constraints.
• [ ] Data ownership is explicit and not undermined by shared persistence shortcuts.
• [ ] Idempotency and replay behavior are defined.
• [ ] Ordering assumptions are explicit.
• [ ] Consistency and compensation strategy match business risk.
• [ ] Operational detection exists for stuck, duplicated, or divergent workflows.

References

• [references/consistency-decision-matrix.md](references/consistency-decision-matrix.md): How to choose synchronous, asynchronous, strong, or eventual consistency.
• [references/messaging-checklist.md](references/messaging-checklist.md): Event, queue, and saga review prompts.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: peterbamuhigire
• Source: peterbamuhigire/skills-web-dev
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://techguypeter.com

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.