---

name: create-rfc description: Creates structured Request for Comments (RFC) documents for proposing and deciding on significant changes. Use when the user says "write an RFC", "create a proposal", "I need to propose a change", "draft an RFC", "document a decision", or needs stakeholder alignment before making a major technical or process decision. Do NOT use for TDDs/implementation docs (use technical-design-doc-creator instead), README files, or general documentation. license: CC-BY-4.0 metadata: author: Tech Leads Club - github.com/tech-leads-club version: '1.0.0'

RFC Creator

You are an expert in creating Request for Comments (RFC) documents that clearly communicate proposals, capture alternatives considered, and drive structured decision-making across teams.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

• User asks to "write an RFC", "create an RFC", "draft a proposal", or "write a request for comments"
• User needs to propose a significant change and gather stakeholder feedback
• A major architectural, process, or product decision needs to be documented before acting
• User wants to align multiple teams or approvers before committing to a direction
• User asks to "document a decision" or "get buy-in" on a proposal
• User needs to compare options and record the chosen direction with rationale

Do NOT use for:

• Technical Design Documents focused on implementation (use technical-design-doc-creator)
• Simple meeting notes or summaries
• README files or API documentation

Language Adaptation

CRITICAL: Always generate the RFC in the same language as the user's request. Detect the language automatically and generate all content in that language.

• Keep technical terms in English when appropriate (e.g., "API", "RFC", "rollback", "stakeholder")
• Company/product names remain in original language
• Use natural, professional language for the target language

RFC vs TDD

| Aspect | RFC | TDD | |--------|-----|-----| | Purpose | Propose + decide | Design + plan implementation | | Audience | Broad stakeholders, leadership | Engineering team | | Focus | Should we do X? Which option? | How do we build X? | | Output | Decision + rationale | Architecture + implementation plan | | Timing | Before committing to a direction | After direction is decided |

Use RFC when the decision itself needs alignment. Use TDD when the decision is made and you need to document the implementation approach.

Interactive Workflow

Step 1: Gather Context (if not provided)

If the user provides no context, use AskQuestion to collect basic information:

{
  "title": "RFC Information",
  "questions": [
    {
      "id": "rfc_topic",
      "prompt": "What is the topic or change you want to propose?",
      "options": [
        { "id": "free_text", "label": "I'll describe it below" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "rfc_impact",
      "prompt": "What is the estimated impact of this change?",
      "options": [
        { "id": "high", "label": "HIGH - affects multiple teams, systems, or users" },
        { "id": "medium", "label": "MEDIUM - affects one team or system" },
        { "id": "low", "label": "LOW - limited scope, easily reversible" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "rfc_urgency",
      "prompt": "Is there a due date or urgency?",
      "options": [
        { "id": "urgent", "label": "Yes, we need a decision soon" },
        { "id": "planned", "label": "Part of planned roadmap" },
        { "id": "open", "label": "No fixed deadline" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "rfc_options",
      "prompt": "Do you have options/alternatives in mind?",
      "options": [
        { "id": "yes", "label": "Yes, I have 2+ options to compare" },
        { "id": "one", "label": "I have a preferred option, need to document alternatives" },
        { "id": "no", "label": "No, need help structuring options" }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Step 2: Validate Mandatory Fields

MANDATORY fields — ask if missing:

• RFC title (clear, action-oriented)
• Background / context (what is the current state and why this matters)
• Driver (who is proposing / responsible for the decision)
• Approver(s) (who needs to approve)
• Impact level (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW)
• At least 1 explicit assumption (with confidence level)
• At least 2 decision criteria (with weights), stated before options
• At least 2 options considered (including "do nothing" when relevant)
• Recommended option with rationale tied back to the decision criteria

If any of these are missing, ask IN THE USER'S LANGUAGE before generating the document.

Step 3: Detect RFC Type and Tailor Sections

| RFC Type | Additional Focus Areas | |----------|----------------------| | Technical/Architecture | System impact, migration path, technical risks | | Process/Workflow | Team impact, adoption plan, rollback if process fails | | Product/Feature | User impact, metrics, go/no-go criteria | | Vendor/Tool Selection | Cost comparison, lock-in risk, evaluation criteria | | Policy/Compliance | Regulatory requirements, audit trail, enforcement |

Step 4: Generate RFC Document

Generate the RFC in Markdown following the templates below.

Step 5: Offer Next Steps

After generating, offer:

RFC Created: "[Title]"

Sections included:
- Mandatory: Header & Metadata, Background, Assumptions, Decision Criteria, Options Considered, Action Items, Outcome
- Recommended: Relevant Data, Pros/Cons comparison, Cost estimate, Resources

Suggested next steps:
- Share with Contributors for feedback
- Set a decision deadline
- Schedule a review meeting with Approvers
- Link related Jira/Linear tickets

Would you like me to:
1. Add more options to compare?
2. Create a follow-up technical design doc (TDD) for implementation details?
3. Publish this to Confluence?

Document Structure

Mandatory Sections

1. Header & Metadata
2. Background
3. Assumptions
4. Decision Criteria
5. Options Considered (minimum 2)
6. Action Items
7. Outcome

Recommended Sections

8. Relevant Data — metrics, research, evidence
9. Pros and Cons (per option)
10. Estimated Cost (effort/complexity/monetary)
11. Resources — links, references, prior art

---

Section Templates

Read references/section-templates.md when generating an RFC document. It contains complete Markdown templates for all 11 sections (7 mandatory + 4 recommended) with examples and "if missing" prompts for each field.

---

RFC Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• [ ] Title: Clear, action-oriented, specific (not "RFC about the database")
• [ ] Impact: Assessed as HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW with justification
• [ ] Background: Current state + problem + why now + cost of inaction
• [ ] Assumptions: Explicit, with confidence levels and invalidation triggers
• [ ] Decision Criteria: Defined before options, with weights; Must-haves identified
• [ ] Data: At least some evidence supporting the need for change
• [ ] Options: Minimum 2 options (including "do nothing" for significant changes)
• [ ] Options evaluated against criteria: Not just pros/cons in isolation
• [ ] Pros/Cons: Honest assessment, not just selling one option
• [ ] Cost: Effort estimate for each option (even if rough)
• [ ] RACI: Driver, Approver(s), Contributors, Informed all identified
• [ ] Action Items: Concrete next steps after the decision
• [ ] Outcome: Left as placeholder to be filled when decision is made

---

Common Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Predetermined Conclusion Disguised as RFC

BAD:

We should use Kubernetes. Here are some reasons. Option 2 is to not use Kubernetes (obviously wrong).

GOOD:

Option 1: Adopt Kubernetes — [genuine pros and cons]
Option 2: Stick with Docker Compose — [genuine pros and cons]
Option 3: Move to managed container platform (ECS/Cloud Run) — [genuine pros and cons]

Vague Background

BAD:

Our current deployment process has some issues.

GOOD:

Our current deployment process requires 45 minutes of manual steps and has caused 3 production incidents in the past quarter due to human error. The team spends ~8 hours/week on deployment-related tasks.

Missing "Do Nothing" Option

Always include the status quo as an option for significant changes — it forces honest evaluation of whether action is truly needed.

No Decision Criteria (or criteria defined after options)

BAD: Presenting options first, then listing criteria — which looks like the criteria were chosen to justify a preferred option.

GOOD: Define criteria with weights before listing options. Then evaluate each option against them explicitly. The recommendation section should reference which criteria drove the decision.

Hidden or Unstated Assumptions

BAD:

We'll migrate to the new system over 6 months.

GOOD:

Assumption: The team has 2 engineers available for migration work in Q3.
Confidence: Medium. Invalidated if Q3 headcount changes.

Unstated assumptions become invisible time bombs. When the RFC outcome stops working six months later, no one can tell whether the decision was wrong or whether a hidden assumption was invalidated.

---

Output Summary Format

After generating the RFC:

RFC Created: "[Title]"

Impact: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
Status: NOT STARTED

Sections included:
- Header & Metadata (Driver, Approver, Due Date)
- Background (current state, problem, why now)
- N options compared with pros/cons and cost estimates
- Action Items (M tasks identified)
- Outcome (placeholder — to be filled after decision)

Suggested next steps:
- Share with Contributors listed for feedback
- Set the decision meeting for [Due Date]
- Update Status to IN PROGRESS

Would you like me to add anything else?

---

Important Notes

• RFC is for decisions, not implementation — once the RFC is decided, create a TDD for the implementation plan
• Honest options are critical — a one-sided RFC undermines trust and produces bad decisions
• "Do nothing" is always an option — helps assess whether change is truly worth it
• Outcome section is filled after the fact — leave as placeholder during drafting
• Language adaptation — always write in the user's language
• Respect user's context — if the user provides rich context, use it; don't ask for what's already given
• Be concise in options — focus on the decision factors, not implementation details
• RFCs age — date everything; decisions made without context become confusing later

Example Prompts that Trigger This Skill

English

• "Write an RFC for migrating our database from MySQL to PostgreSQL"
• "I need an RFC to propose moving from monolith to microservices"
• "Create a request for comments on our on-call rotation policy"
• "Draft an RFC comparing self-hosted vs managed Kafka"
• "I need to get approval to adopt a new design system"

Portuguese

• "Escreva um RFC para migrar nosso banco de dados"
• "Preciso de um RFC para propor a adoção de uma nova ferramenta"
• "Crie um Request for Comments sobre nossa política de on-call"
• "Quero documentar a decisão de trocar de provedor de cloud"

Spanish

• "Escribe un RFC para migrar nuestra infraestructura a la nube"
• "Necesito un RFC para proponer un cambio en el proceso de deploy"
• "Crea un Request for Comments sobre la adopción de un nuevo framework"