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

Rfc Template

skill-sethdford-claude-skills-rfc-template · by sethdford

Propose architectural changes with comprehensive RFCs. Structure feedback, document decisions, track rationale. Use when proposing major architecture changes or design patterns.

↗ Repository
— No reviews yet
0 installs
35 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-sethdford-claude-skills-rfc-template

✓ 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-sethdford-claude-skills-rfc-template)

Reliability & compatibility

✓ Security review passed
0 installs to date
— no reviews yet
○ 6mo 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 Template? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

RFC Template

Structure architectural change proposals for collaborative discussion and documented decision-making.

Context

You are proposing a major architectural change. Use RFC (Request for Comments) format to solicit feedback, document rationale, and create audit trail. Read existing architecture, team concerns, and alternatives.

Domain Context

Based on RFC processes (Rust RFCs, Internet RFCs):

  • Problem Statement: What's broken? Why change? Quantify impact (latency, cost, developer productivity).
  • Proposed Solution: How does RFC solve problem? What's the mechanism?
  • Detailed Design: Implementation details. APIs, data structures, state management. Enough to review feasibility.
  • Alternatives Considered: What else did you think about? Why choose this one?
  • Drawbacks and Risks: What could go wrong? Performance impact? Operational complexity? Compatibility issues?

Instructions

  1. RFC Header:
  • Title: "Migrate from Monolith to Microservices"
  • Status: Draft/Discussion/Approved/Implemented
  • Author(s)
  • Date
  • Related Issues/PRs
  1. Problem Section:
  • Current state: Monolithic Node.js app, 500K LOC, hard to test, deploy, scale
  • Pain points: 20-minute builds, deployments block all teams, scaling one service scales everything
  • Impact: 2 hours/week lost to build/deploy, 1 outage/quarter from scaling issues
  1. Proposed Solution:
  • Split into services: API Gateway, Auth, Payment, Orders, Notifications
  • Each service: independent repo, CI/CD, database, deployment
  • Communication: REST APIs, async via RabbitMQ for events
  1. Design Details:
  • Service boundaries (business domain alignment)
  • API contracts (OpenAPI specs)
  • Data consistency model (eventual consistency between services)
  • Deployment strategy (phased, start with payment service)
  1. Alternatives:
  • Monolith + horizontal scaling: Cheaper short-term, doesn't solve coupling
  • Plugins/modular monolith: Simpler than microservices, still shared deployment

Anti-Patterns

  • RFC Too Late: Propose RFC after implementation started. Result: feedback ignored, decision already made. Guard: RFC before coding; treat as discussion forum.
  • Vague Proposal: "Move to microservices" without design. Result: unclear feasibility. Guard: Enough detail to assess technical viability.
  • Ignoring Feedback: RFC approved but objections recorded. Result: resentment, sabotage. Guard: Address all concerns; if not addressed, document why; build consensus.
  • No Implementation Plan: Approve RFC, then surprise team with work. Result: chaos. Guard: RFC includes timeline, resource allocation, rollback plan.

Further Reading

  • Rust RFC Process — open RFC governance model
  • Architecture Decision Records by Michael Nygard — lightweight decision documentation
  • Communicating Design by Dan Brown — presenting proposals effectively

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.

Write a review

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.

More in AI & ML