AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Design Rationale

skill-dragoon0x-taste-skills-design-rationale · by Dragoon0x

Defend a design decision to skeptical stakeholders with structure and evidence. Use when presenting design work, writing design documentation, or pushing back on requests to change something.

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

Install

$ agentstack add skill-dragoon0x-taste-skills-design-rationale

✓ 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.

Are you the author of Design Rationale? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Design Rationale

Convince the room with structure, not feelings.

How to use

  • /design-rationale Apply rationale constraints to defend design decisions in this conversation.

Constraints

Rationale Structure

  • MUST include all four elements in one paragraph:
  1. What you chose
  2. What you didn't choose (and why)
  3. What principle guided the decision
  4. What outcome you expect
  • MUST connect to user behavior or business goals, not aesthetic preference
  • NEVER defend a design decision with "it feels right" or "it looks better"

Anticipate Objections

  • MUST address the most likely pushback before it's raised
  • SHOULD acknowledge what's lost by this choice (the tradeoff)
  • MUST have a fallback position if the primary argument doesn't land

Anti-Patterns

  • Defending decisions by appealing to authority ("Apple does it this way")
  • Using data as a shield without explaining the logic ("our A/B test showed...")
  • Getting defensive when challenged instead of engaging with the objection
  • Over-explaining simple decisions (not every choice needs a thesis)

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.