L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Design et création · SKILL.md

distributed-consensus

distributed-consensus

Distributed-systems architecture at the protocol level: consensus (Raft, Paxos, BFT), replication and quorums, consistency models, clock synchronization, and the CAP/PACELC trade-offs. Architect-level — how to make state agree and survive failures. USE WHEN: designing replicated/consensus systems, "Raft", "Paxos", "BFT", "quorum", "leader election", "consi…

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: distributed-consensus description: | Distributed-systems architecture at the protocol level: consensus (Raft, Paxos, BFT), replication and quorums, consistency models, clock synchronization, and the CAP/PACELC trade-offs. Architect-level — how to make state agree and survive failures.

USE WHEN: designing replicated/consensus systems, "Raft", "Paxos", "BFT", "quorum", "leader election", "consistency model", "linearizability", "CAP", "PACELC", "split-brain", replication topology, distributed state machines.

DO NOT USE FOR: app microservice wiring (use web/enterprise patterns); message queues (use messaging skills); blockchain specifics (use bitcoin skills). allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob

Distributed Consensus & Replication

Consensus protocol selection

ProtocolFault modelNotes
RaftCrash-fault (f of 2f+1)Understandable, leader-based; default for etcd/Consul
(Multi-)PaxosCrash-faultFoundational, subtle; powers Spanner/Chubby lineage
BFT (PBFT, Tendermint)Byzantine (f of 3f+1)For untrusted/adversarial nodes; higher msg cost
Viewstamped ReplicationCrash-faultRaft-like, predates it

Use crash-fault consensus inside a trust boundary; use BFT only when nodes can be malicious (cross-org, blockchain) — it costs more nodes and messages.

Replication & quorums

  • Quorum: W + R > N for read-your-writes; tune (e.g. N=3, W=2, R=2).
  • Leader-based (strong, simple, leader bottleneck) vs leaderless (Dynamo-style, available, needs read-repair/anti-entropy + conflict handling).
  • Sync vs async replication = durability/latency vs RPO on failover.

Consistency models (state the one you need)

Linearizable → sequential → causal → eventual. Stronger = more coordination = higher latency / lower availability. Don't ask for linearizable if causal suffices.

CAP / PACELC

Under a Partition choose C or A; else (no partition) trade Latency vs Consistency. Real systems are points on a spectrum (Spanner: CP + TrueTime clocks; Dynamo: AP). Clocks: avoid relying on wall-clock ordering; use logical / hybrid logical clocks, or bounded-uncertainty clocks (TrueTime) for external consistency.

When to recommend what

  • Config/coordination, small cluster → Raft (etcd).
  • Global strong consistency → Paxos/Spanner-style + synchronized clocks.
  • High availability, geo, conflict-tolerant → leaderless Dynamo-style + CRDTs.
  • Adversarial/multi-party → BFT.
Skills enregistrées