| name | create-rfc |
| description | Creates structured Request for Comments (RFC) documents for proposing and deciding on significant changes. Use when asked to create or write an RFC, draft a proposal, align stakeholders, or propose a change before a decision.
|
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.
Routing
- Decision already made, need to record it →
/create-adr
- Define product requirements →
/create-prd
- Document architecture →
/create-technical-design
- Plan execution →
/create-implementation-plan
Process
Step 1: Gather Context
If the user provides no context, use AskUserQuestion to collect basic information:
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "What is the topic or change you want to propose?",
"type": "text"
},
{
"question": "What is the estimated impact of this change?",
"type": "single_choice",
"options": [
"HIGH — affects multiple teams, systems, or users",
"MEDIUM — affects one team or system",
"LOW — limited scope, easily reversible"
]
},
{
"question": "Is there a due date or urgency?",
"type": "single_choice",
"options": [
"Yes, we need a decision soon",
"Part of planned roadmap",
"No fixed deadline"
]
},
{
"question": "Do you have options/alternatives in mind?",
"type": "single_choice",
"options": [
"Yes, I have 2+ options to compare",
"I have a preferred option, need to document alternatives",
"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 required fields are missing, request them using "AskUserQuestion" 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
File location: Scan the project for an existing RFC directory (docs/rfcs/, docs/rfc/, rfcs/, .rfcs/). Find the highest existing number (e.g., if RFC-001 and RFC-003 exist, the highest is 003) and assign the next number. If no directory exists, start at RFC-001 and suggest creating the directory. Suggested path: docs/rfcs/{NNN}-{kebab-case-title}.md. Confirm location with the user before writing.
Generate the RFC in Markdown following the templates below.
Step 5: Offer Next Steps
After generating, offer:
RFC Created: "RFC-{NNN}: [Title]"
File: docs/rfcs/{NNN}-{kebab-case-title}.md
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 for architecture, or an implementation plan for execution phases?
3. Publish this to Confluence?
Document Structure
Mandatory Sections
- Header & Metadata
- Background
- Assumptions
- Decision Criteria
- Options Considered (minimum 2)
- Action Items
- Outcome
Recommended Sections
- Relevant Data — metrics, research, evidence
- Pros and Cons (per option)
- Estimated Cost (effort/complexity/monetary)
- Resources — links, references, prior art
Section Templates
Generate each section using the structure described in Document Structure above. For each of the 11 sections (7 mandatory + 4 recommended), write the section heading, populate all fields from the gathered context, and use placeholder text in italics (e.g. To be filled after decision) for fields that will be completed later.
RFC Quality Checklist
Before finalizing, verify:
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: "RFC-{NNN}: [Title]"
File: docs/rfcs/{NNN}-{kebab-case-title}.md
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 technical design for architecture and an implementation plan for execution
- 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
- "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"
Attribution
Based on create-rfc by Tech Leads Club, licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Changes have been made to the original.
