scalability-advisor
Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Assess system scalability: identify bottlenecks, recommend scaling strategies per container, and define capacity planning guidelines. Use when working on solution architecture, C4 diagrams, APIs, ADRs, or system design.
In this repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-memory-designerSkill
- ai-cost-optimizerSkill
- ai-evaluation-builderSkill
- ai-latency-optimizerSkill
- ai-solution-architectSkill
- ai-workflow-builderSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- human-in-the-loop-designerSkill
- multi-agent-plannerSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- prompt-optimizerSkill
- prompt-reviewerSkill
- adr-generatorSkill
- api-designerSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- component-diagram-builderSkill
- container-diagram-builderSkill
- data-flow-analyzerSkill
- integration-plannerSkill
- observability-plannerSkill
- solution-architectureSkill
- system-context-builderSkill
- experiment-designerSkill
- go-to-market-plannerSkill
- pricing-strategy-advisorSkill
- mcp-best-practicesSkill
- mcp-client-generatorSkill
- mcp-security-reviewSkill
- mcp-server-generatorSkill
- mcp-tool-generatorSkill
- acceptance-criteria-generatorSkill
- analytics-instrumentation-plannerSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- epic-generatorSkill
- feature-prioritizationSkill
- idea-validatorSkill
- north-star-metric-advisorSkill
- okr-builderSkill
- persona-generatorSkill
- prd-generatorSkill
- problem-statement-builderSkill
- product-discovery-assistantSkill
- product-vision-builderSkill
- sprint-plannerSkill
- story-mappingSkill
- user-story-generatorSkill
- value-proposition-designerSkill
- chunking-strategy-advisorSkill
- embedding-strategy-advisorSkill
- hybrid-search-advisorSkill
- knowledge-ingestion-plannerSkill
- rag-architecture-designerSkill
- retriever-optimizerSkill
- ai-governance-advisorSkill
- ai-threat-modelingSkill
- guardrails-builderSkill
- owasp-llm-reviewerSkill
- prompt-injection-detectorSkill
- skill-nameSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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 123
Start with measured baseline, not guesses.
- Distinctive: line 125
Prefer stateless containers for horizontal scaling.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 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
Scalability Advisor
Purpose
Assess system scalability: identify bottlenecks, recommend scaling strategies per container, and define capacity planning guidelines.
Input: Container diagram, NFRs (throughput, latency, users), data flow analysis (optional)
Output: Scalability Assessment with bottleneck analysis, scaling recommendations, and capacity model
Examples: See examples.md for worked input/output.
Workflow
Step 1: Extract scalability requirements
From NFRs, define:
| Metric | Target | Peak multiplier | Measurement |
Metrics: concurrent users, requests/sec, data volume, growth rate.
Step 2: Analyze each container
For each container:
| Container | Stateless? | Bottleneck risk | Current limit estimate |
Identify: CPU-bound, memory-bound, I/O-bound, connection-pool limits.
Step 3: Identify system bottlenecks
Rank bottlenecks:
| Rank | Component | Constraint | Impact at scale |
Common: database connections, single instance, sync external calls, large payloads.
Step 4: Recommend scaling strategies
Per container:
| Strategy | When | Trade-off |
| Horizontal scaling | Stateless services | Coordination complexity |
| Vertical scaling | Short-term, DB | Cost ceiling |
| Caching | Read-heavy | Staleness |
| Read replicas | Read/write split | Replication lag |
| Sharding | Large datasets | Query complexity |
| Async processing | Burst workloads | Latency |
Step 5: Build capacity model
Simple capacity estimate:
Peak RPS = users × actions_per_session / session_duration
Required instances = Peak RPS / RPS_per_instanceDocument assumptions explicitly.
Step 6: Define load testing plan
| Scenario | Load | Success criteria |
Step 7: Validate
Run Validation checklist.
Decision Rules
| Condition | Action |
| No NFR throughput targets | Request targets or use conservative assumptions; mark Confidence low |
| Stateful container scaled horizontally | Flag session/state management requirement |
| Database is bottleneck | Recommend read replicas, caching, or sharding with trade-offs |
| External API rate limits | Include in capacity model; recommend caching/batching |
| Scale requirements < 1000 users | Recommend simple vertical scaling; avoid premature optimization |
Validation
- Scalability NFRs extracted or assumptions stated
- Every container analyzed for bottleneck risk
- Top 3 bottlenecks ranked with rationale
- Scaling strategy per high-risk container
- Capacity model with explicit assumptions
- Load testing scenarios defined
- Premature optimization flagged if scale is small
- Trade-offs documented for each strategy
Anti-patterns
- Scale everything — horizontal scaling stateful DB without plan.
- Cache as fix-all — caching without invalidation strategy.
- Ignore externals — not modeling third-party rate limits.
- No load testing — recommendations without validation plan.
- Infinite scale claims — "handles any load" without evidence.
Best Practices
- Start with measured baseline, not guesses.
- Scale the bottleneck first (Amdahl's law).
- Prefer stateless containers for horizontal scaling.
- Plan scale-down as well as scale-up (cost).
- Align with data-flow-analyzer for data layer scaling.
Output Structure
# Scalability Assessment: [System Name]
## Requirements
| Metric | Target | Peak | Assumptions |
|--------|--------|------|-------------|
## Container Analysis
| Container | Stateless | Risk | Limit |
|-----------|-----------|------|-------|
## Bottlenecks
| Rank | Component | Constraint | At-risk metric |
|------|-----------|------------|----------------|
## Recommendations
| Container | Strategy | Rationale | Trade-off |
|-----------|----------|-----------|-----------|
## Capacity Model
[Calculations with assumptions]
## Load Test Plan
| Scenario | Load | Pass criteria |
|----------|------|---------------|
## Risks
| Risk | Mitigation |
|------|------------|Next Skills
| Outcome | Recommended Skill |
| Review scalability in full context | architecture/architecture-review |
| Update architecture for scale | architecture/solution-architecture |
| Document scaling decision | architecture/adr-generator |
| AI system scaling | ai/ai-solution-architect |
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.

