multi-layer-caching-strategy
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Designs caching across layers (client, CDN, app, database) reasoning about invalidation, coherence, and stampede protection. Use when adding caching, debugging stale data, sizing a cache, choosing a write policy, or when read load or latency requires a cache tier.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 19
Write-through: write hits cache + DB synchronously.
- Distinctive: line 20
Write-behind: write cache, flush to DB async.
- Distinctive: line 32
Cold start / cache flush: after deploy or eviction, the origin gets full load it can't handle.
- Distinctive: line 33
Negative caching gap: not caching "not found" lets a hot missing key hammer the DB.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Multi-Layer Caching Strategy
A cache is a bet that staleness is cheaper than recomputation. The two hard problems are invalidation and the failure mode when the bet is wrong; the speedup is the easy part.
Define the staleness contract before adding the cache
- Tolerable staleness per data type: must-be-fresh (auth, balances) vs seconds-stale (feeds) vs minutes-stale (config). This dictates everything downstream.
- Read/write ratio and key cardinality: caching only pays when reads dominate and the working set fits the tier.
- Coherence requirement: can two users see different values simultaneously? If not, you need single-source invalidation, not per-node TTLs.
Write policy — pick deliberately
- Cache-aside (lazy): app reads cache, on miss loads DB and populates. Simple; first request slow; risk of stale on concurrent write.
- Write-through: write hits cache + DB synchronously. Fresh reads, slower writes.
- Write-behind: write cache, flush to DB async. Fast writes, risk of data loss and ordering bugs on crash.
- Read-through: cache owns loading. Centralizes logic; couples cache to data source.
Invalidation — where correctness dies
- TTL is eventual coherence; bounded staleness but a thundering-herd on expiry.
- Explicit invalidation is precise but races with concurrent repopulation (the classic "delete then someone reads stale and repopulates" bug — invalidate after the write commits, and consider versioned keys).
- Versioned/immutable keys sidestep invalidation: content-addressed keys never go stale; you change the key, not the value.
Failure modes (design for these explicitly)
- Stampede / cache stampede: a hot key expires and N requests all recompute. Mitigate with request coalescing (single-flight), probabilistic early expiry, or locks.
- Cold start / cache flush: after deploy or eviction, the origin gets full load it can't handle. The cache became a load-bearing wall — size the origin for cache-miss traffic or warm it.
- Negative caching gap: not caching "not found" lets a hot missing key hammer the DB.
- Inconsistent layers: CDN serves what app already invalidated. Coherence must span layers or be explicitly bounded per layer.
Adversarial validation
- Kill the cache tier entirely: does the origin survive the resulting load, or does the cache outage become a total outage?
- Concurrent write + read on the same key: what's the worst stale value a user can observe, and for how long?
- A single key gets 100x traffic (celebrity problem): does one hot key melt one shard?
Non-obvious risks
- Caching converts a latency problem into a consistency problem plus a capacity cliff.
- Per-node in-process caches multiply staleness windows and are invisible to central invalidation.
- High hit-rate hides origin fragility until the day it doesn't.
Output structure
Deliver: per-data-type staleness contract, the layer map with write/invalidation policy per layer, the stampede + cold-start protection, the origin's survivability under full miss load, and the worst-case observed staleness.
In this repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- adversarial-code-reviewSkill
- api-contract-designSkill
- attack-surface-mappingSkill
- authn-authz-design-reviewSkill
- benchmark-designSkill
- capacity-scalability-planningSkill
- concurrency-race-analysisSkill
- data-consistency-modelingSkill
- data-exfiltration-analysisSkill
- distributed-consensus-designSkill
- error-handling-architectureSkill
- event-driven-architectureSkill
- experiment-designSkill
- hypothesis-falsificationSkill
- incident-rca-postmortemSkill
- legacy-refactoring-strategySkill
- literature-synthesisSkill
- metrics-designSkill
- mvp-scope-cuttingSkill
- performance-profilingSkill
- rate-limiting-designSkill
- requirements-disambiguationSkill
- secrets-management-auditSkill
- statistical-validity-analysisSkill
- supply-chain-risk-analysisSkill
- system-decomposition-synthesisSkill
- threat-modelingSkill
- tradeoff-decision-frameworkSkill
- user-failure-mode-mappingSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

