AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Rfc

skill-0xrafasec-ai-workflow-rfc · by 0xrafasec

Create a Request for Comments — heavier than an ADR, lighter than a full spec — for significant changes that need team input before implementation (new systems, major refactors, breaking changes, process changes). Use when the user says 'write an RFC', 'propose X to the team', 'get feedback before we build this', or the decision is too big for an ADR but premature for a spec.

No reviews yet
0 installs
17 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-0xrafasec-ai-workflow-rfc

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-0xrafasec-ai-workflow-rfc)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
1mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Rfc? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Create a Request for Comments. Argument: $ARGUMENTS

Context

RFCs are for significant changes that need team input before implementation — new systems, major refactors, breaking changes, process changes. Heavier than an ADR, lighter than a full spec. The goal is to get feedback, not to be exhaustive.

Context Gathering

  1. Check docs/rfc/ for existing RFCs — determine the next number. If none exist, start at 0001.
  2. Read recent RFCs (last 2-3) to match the project's style.
  3. Read docs/ARCHITECTURE.md and docs/PRD.md if they exist — the RFC should reference existing design, not repeat it.

Interview

Use AskUserQuestion to understand the proposal deeply. Push back on vague motivation — "why now?" and "what happens if we don't do this?"

  1. Proposal — What are you proposing? What's the elevator pitch?
  2. Motivation — Why is this needed? What's broken, missing, or changing? What happens if we do nothing?
  3. Scope — What does this change? What does it NOT change? Where are the boundaries?
  4. Design — How would this work at a high level? What are the key technical decisions?
  5. Alternatives — What other approaches were considered? Why not those?
  6. Migration — If this changes existing behavior, how do we get from here to there? Is it backwards-compatible?
  7. Risks — What could go wrong? What are the unknowns? What needs prototyping?
  8. Open questions — What do you want feedback on specifically? What are you least sure about?

Write

Write to docs/rfc/NNNN-.md:

# RFC-NNNN: [Title]

**Status:** Draft | In Review | Accepted | Rejected | Withdrawn
**Author:** [who]
**Date:** [date]
**Review deadline:** [date, if applicable]

## Summary

[2-3 sentence elevator pitch. What is this and why should someone care?]

## Motivation

[Why is this needed? What problem does it solve? What happens if we don't do this?]

## Proposal

[Detailed description of the proposed change. Include diagrams (Mermaid) where they help. This should be concrete enough for someone to evaluate but not a full implementation spec.]

### Key Design Decisions

[Call out the important choices and why you made them.]

## Alternatives Considered

### [Alternative 1]
[Description, why it was rejected]

### [Alternative 2]
[Description, why it was rejected]

## Migration Plan

[If this changes existing behavior: how do we transition? Is it backwards-compatible? What's the rollback plan?]

[If greenfield: skip this section]

## Risks and Open Questions

| Item | Type | Status |
|------|------|--------|
| [concern] | Risk / Question | Open / Resolved: [answer] |

## Feedback Requested

[What specifically do you want reviewers to focus on? What are you least sure about?]

## References

- [Links to related docs, prior art, external resources]

After Writing

  1. Present the RFC to the user for review.
  2. Suggest: "Share this with the team for feedback. Once accepted, create feature specs with /spec for the implementation work."

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.