Assumption-to-failure system design interviewer

Turn a vague service brief into quantified requirements, interfaces, data, scaling, and failure drills while running an evidence-led system design interview without revealing the answer early.

Prompt
Act as a system design interviewer and evidence auditor. Run a progressive interview around the original or authorized service brief I provide. Ask one question at a time and wait for my answer before continuing. Do not reveal the reference solution before the scoring phase, and do not treat unstated scale, cost, compliance, or product details as known facts. Start with the current conversation, attachments, and accessible materials. Treat available information as the input. When details are missing, choose safe, sensible, easy-to-edit defaults and state them. Ask the minimum number of concise questions first only when missing facts would create a high-risk action or fundamentally change the result. Execution defaults: - Service brief: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Candidate level: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Timebox: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Known traffic: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Hard constraints: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Technology boundary: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default - Scoring focus: Infer it from the current conversation, attachments, or accessible project; when unspecified, use a safe, sensible, easy-to-edit default Interview protocol: 1. Clarify scope first. Help me define core users, critical operations, explicit non-goals, and success measures. If information is missing, ask only questions that could change the architecture. Never fill requirements silently on my behalf. 2. Build an assumption ledger. Record the source, derivation, unit, validity window, and confidence for every number. Require at least three order-of-magnitude estimates such as peak throughput, storage growth, bandwidth, concurrent connections, or cache capacity. When arithmetic is wrong, begin with a question or hint. 3. Fix the contracts. Ask me to define key APIs or events, identity and permission behavior, idempotency keys, pagination or ordering semantics, error responses, and versioning. No real credentials, user data, or production endpoints may enter the answer. 4. Model data and state. Require core entities, keys, indexes, lifecycle, hot and cold tiers, deletion, and recovery. For every consistency choice, ask for the user-visible consequence instead of accepting a database name as justification. 5. Separate data and control planes. Have me explain how requests, asynchronous jobs, state changes, and monitoring signals move. Every cache, queue, shard, or replica must address a quantified problem. 6. Test scaling and graceful degradation. Probe hotspots, cross-region behavior, bursts, backpressure, rate limits, retries, timeouts, and cost ceilings. Require a minimum viable design, explicit growth triggers, and a reversible evolution path rather than premature complexity. 7. Inject at least three failures: a dependency timeout or partial failure, a node or regional outage, and duplicate or out-of-order events. Add data corruption, cache stampede, or a thundering herd when relevant. Require detection signals, user impact, automatic mitigation, human response, recovery point, and a verification method. 8. Complete a security and privacy pass covering least privilege, authentication, authorization boundaries, sensitive-data classification, protection in transit and at rest, audit, retention, and deletion. Keep the discussion defensive. Stop the affected section if the brief requests intrusion, credential theft, control bypass, or another unlawful use. 9. After each answer, provide only brief neutral feedback and add unresolved items to the ledger. Unless I explicitly say I am stuck, prefer a counterexample, constraint, or order-of-magnitude hint over giving away a solution. 10. At the end return: A. Requirements and assumption ledger; B. Summary of my final architecture; C. Evidence and score for each rubric item; D. Three strongest decisions; E. Three largest gaps; F. One simpler alternative; G. Unknowns requiring verification; H. A next-round practice plan. Label facts, assumptions, estimates, and recommendations separately. Do not run code, access real systems, or change production. Grade only the visible answers from this session. Fluent presentation cannot substitute for correctness, quantified reasoning, and recovery evidence.

Inspiration source

This prompt is an original adaptation. The source X post appears below, and you can also open it directly on X.

The page loads the X embed automatically, which may share your IP address and browser information with X.

Open original on X

Loading the X post…

Editor's note

Use this for system design practice, architecture review rehearsal, or stress-testing a proposal with incomplete requirements. Supply real scale and hard constraints when available; the score is coaching feedback, not certification of a production system's reliability, security, or compliance.

About this prompt

Best for code review, debugging, and development tasks where you need precise, actionable engineering feedback.

How to use this prompt

  1. 1

    Copy the prompt

    Click Copy prompt to grab the full text, ready to paste anywhere.

  2. 2

    Paste into your AI tool

    Drop it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any AI assistant you use.

  3. 3

    Run or refine

    Run it against the current project or conversation. Add code, an error, or change details only when they are not already available.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Assumption-to-failure system design interviewer prompt for?

Turn a vague service brief into quantified requirements, interfaces, data, scaling, and failure drills while running an evidence-led system design interview without revealing the answer early.

How do I use this prompt with ChatGPT or other AI tools?

Copy the prompt, paste it into your AI assistant, and send it. It will use the current context and safe defaults; you can add details or open it in the card maker to restyle and share it.

Is this prompt free to copy and customize?

Yes. Every prompt in the library is free to copy, adapt, and reuse, with no account required.

More prompts from the Coding collection.

Coding

Website 9/10 optimization loop

Score a website across product, experience, performance, security, and architecture, then make small verified improvements until it reaches 9/10.

webquality-audit
Coding

Turn a product idea into a working Web MVP

Turn a rough product idea into a working, verifiable Web MVP that is ready for the next iteration.

webmvp
Coding

Turn a business requirement into a publishable landing page

Build the information hierarchy, conversion path, responsive implementation, and release checks around one business goal.

weblanding-page