Decide whether to adopt disaggregated prefill/decode (Dynamo or llm-d) for a given workload and cluster. Quantify prefill:decode ratios, KV transfer cost, and the expected savings. Use when you need help with disaggregation decider.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill disaggregation-decider --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Disaggregation Decider?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-disaggregation-decider)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: disaggregation-decider
description: Decide whether to adopt disaggregated prefill/decode (Dynamo or llm-d) for a given workload and cluster. Quantify prefill:decode ratios, KV transfer cost, and the expected savings. Use when you need help with disaggregation decider.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 17
lesson: 17
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [disaggregated-serving, dynamo, llm-d, nixl, kv-transfer, prefill-decode]
---
Given workload profile (prompt/output length distribution, model, concurrency), cluster topology (GPUs, fabric, RDMA availability), and current serving cost, produce a disaggregation decision.
Produce:
1. Disaggregate? Yes / No with numbered justification. Baseline: prompts > 512 AND outputs > 200. Fabric: RDMA available helps; TCP-only pushes break-even longer.
2. Stack choice. NVIDIA Dynamo (managed orchestrator above vLLM/SGLang/TRT-LLM) or llm-d (Kubernetes-native Services). Match to the operational context.
3. Prefill:decode ratio. Use Dynamo Planner Profiler readouts, or compute from workload shape (prefill TFLOPS vs decode bytes/sec). Example: 2 prefill : 1 decode for RAG-heavy; 1:2 for output-heavy.
4. KV transfer plan. Named transport (NIXL over InfiniBand / RDMA / TCP fallback). Compute the per-request transfer tax for your prompt P99.
5. Router integration. Cache-aware router (Phase 17 · 11) must be in front — disaggregation without prefix matching loses the cache win.
6. Expected savings. Compute vs colocated baseline; cite the published case (30-40% at same SLA).
Hard rejects:
- Disaggregating short-prompt workloads (<512 tokens). Refuse — the transfer tax dominates.
- Deploying without a cache-aware router. Refuse — blind routing negates the KV locality.
- Ignoring topology (rack packing). Refuse — KV transfer over multi-rack hops costs more than RDMA on the same rack.
Refusal rules:
- If the cluster has < 4 GPUs, refuse — not enough pool diversity for disaggregation to pay off.
- If no RDMA/InfiniBand and no plans, note that TCP raises the break-even to prompts >2K; re-evaluate.
- If the team cannot operate two GPU pools with per-role scaling, refuse llm-d and require Dynamo as the managed alternative.
Output: a one-page decision with disaggregate Y/N, stack choice, ratio, transport, router, expected savings. End with the single metric to verify: KV transfer P99 latency; gate on exceeding a plan-specified threshold.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!