Rfc Writer

Write a design document that engineers can review, critique, and decide on. Output: structured markdown document with sections that match the document type (RFC / ADR / tech spec / design doc).

Use when the engineering team needs to commit a non-trivial decision to writing — new architecture, system migration, protocol choice, framework selection, deprecation plan, security model, performance budget. Not for release notes (that's release-notes). Not for code documentation / API reference (use essay-write for longer-form docs).

This skill does NOT:

• write user-facing release notes (use release-notes)
• write marketing landing pages (use landing-copy)
• write API documentation / code docs (use essay-write for longer prose; for reference docs use a dedicated tool)
• generate code (it documents decisions about code, doesn't write code)
• pick the answer for the user — the skill helps STRUCTURE the discussion; the team / author makes the decision

ROLE

Read the topic + context → pick document type (RFC / ADR / tech spec / design doc) → apply the type's structure → fill each section with the user's content → use RFC 2119 keywords for normative statements → return reviewable markdown.

PIPELINE

1. Pick document type. See references/document-types.md:

• RFC (Request for Comments) — proposal under discussion; may have multiple revisions before consensus
• ADR (Architecture Decision Record) — captures a single decision after it's made; short, focused
• Tech spec — specifies how to BUILD something already decided
• Design doc — broader than RFC; explores a problem space, may not have a single recommendation yet

1. Gather inputs. From user: problem statement, what's been tried, constraints, deadline (if any), known stakeholders.

1. Apply structure. Each document type has its own section template. See references/templates.md.

1. Use RFC 2119 keywords correctly. MUST / MUST NOT / SHOULD / SHOULD NOT / MAY for normative statements. See references/rfc-2119.md.

1. Surface alternatives. RFCs and design docs must explore at least 2-3 alternatives. ADRs explicitly list "considered alternatives" before the decision. See references/alternatives.md.

1. Spell out consequences. Every proposal has trade-offs. Make them explicit:

• Positive: what this enables / improves
• Negative: what gets harder / what risks are introduced
• Mitigations: how to handle the negatives

1. Add open questions. Things the doc doesn't yet answer. Surfaces these for reviewer feedback.

1. Final pass. Run through writer for prose cleanup. RFCs need to be READABLE — many people will read them.

MODES

• rfc-writer rfc — generate an RFC for an open question
• rfc-writer adr — generate an ADR for a settled decision
• rfc-writer tech-spec — generate a tech spec for an approved feature
• rfc-writer design-doc — broader design doc exploring a problem
• rfc-writer --from-template — start from a blank template only
• rfc-writer --review — critique an existing RFC (missing sections, weak alternatives, undocumented risks)

REFERENCES (load on demand)

| File | When to load | |---|---| | [references/document-types.md](references/document-types.md) | When picking the type — when to use RFC vs ADR vs spec vs design doc | | [references/templates.md](references/templates.md) | When assembling — full section structure per document type | | [references/rfc-2119.md](references/rfc-2119.md) | When writing normative statements — MUST / SHOULD / MAY semantics | | [references/alternatives.md](references/alternatives.md) | When listing alternatives — how to compare fairly, when to drop one, "why not X" pattern | | [references/review-checklist.md](references/review-checklist.md) | When reviewing existing docs — common gaps and weak points to flag |

EXAMPLES

See [examples/before-after.md](examples/before-after.md) — 4 calibration pairs: ADR / RFC / tech spec / design doc showing weak vs strong versions.

CONSTRAINTS

• Document type drives structure. Don't pad an ADR with RFC sections; don't compress an RFC into ADR brevity.
• State the problem before the proposal. A reader who doesn't know the problem can't evaluate the proposal.
• Show your work — list alternatives. "We considered A but went with B because..." is what makes a doc credible. A doc with no alternatives reads like a decree.
• Use RFC 2119 keywords for normative statements. "Clients MUST send Authorization header" not "Clients should send Authorization header" (lowercase "should" is non-normative).
• No marketing language. "Revolutionary approach", "best-in-class architecture" — strip on sight. The doc is for engineers; they want correctness, not hype.
• No "we will see in the future". State what's known; for what's unknown, put it in "Open questions".
• Cite sources. Link to: prior RFCs, related code, benchmarks, vendor docs, mailing-list threads. Engineers verify claims.
• No emoji in RFCs / ADRs. Doc is read by a wide audience including future-you; emoji ages poorly and looks unprofessional.
• Date the document. ISO 8601. RFCs may be revised; date each revision.
• Status field. Every RFC/ADR has a status: Proposed / Accepted / Rejected / Superseded / Deprecated.

INVOCATION HINTS

When the user says any of:

• "write an RFC for ..."
• "design doc for ..."
• "ADR / Architecture Decision Record"
• "tech spec / technical specification"
• "spec out the X system"
• "document the decision to use X"
• "explore alternatives for ..."
• "review this RFC"

RU triggers (use the skill when the user writes any of):

• «RFC для ... / напиши RFC по ...»
• «ADR для ... / запиши архитектурное решение»
• «дизайн-док / технический документ / тех-спек»
• «спецификация на ...»
• «задокументируй решение использовать X»
• «рассмотри альтернативы для ...»
• «отревьюй этот RFC»

For RU template variants (RU-localized headers, отметка про английские RFC 2119 keywords), see [references/templates.md](references/templates.md) section RU template variants.

Use this skill. For user-facing release notes → release-notes. For prose documentation → essay-write. For viral / marketing content about a launch → viral-text or landing-copy.

Source & license

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

• Author: Mikefluff
• Source: Mikefluff/skills
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@mikefluff/skills

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