Skip to main content

write-rfc

Draft or revise a Video.js RFC. Use for public APIs, product direction, user-facing DX, shared architecture, or hard-to-reverse proposals needing buy-in.

Source facts

Repository
videojs/video.js
Last source activity
August 10, 2026 at 17:26
Detected SKILL.md language
English
Stars
40,017
Forks
7,483

Install options

The review-first prompt is selected by default. You can switch to a direct command or download a local copy.

Review the source files

Read SKILL.md and any companion files shown by SkillsMP before deciding whether to install.

Showing SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Source instructions · Read-only preview
name
write-rfc
description
Draft or revise a Video.js RFC. Use for public APIs, product direction, user-facing DX, shared architecture, or hard-to-reverse proposals needing buy-in.
# RFC Read `rfc/README.md` for the current lifecycle and format. If the user explicitly asks for an internal record instead, use a design or decision record when the author owns the choice and no wider agreement is needed. ## Workflow 1. Verify that an RFC is warranted; skip it for local implementation details, ordinary bugs, or already-approved work. 2. Read current code, existing RFCs/design records, related issues, and relevant user evidence. 3. Define the problem, affected users, constraints, goals, and explicit non-goals. 4. Present the proposed direction at the level needed for agreement, not a line-by-line implementation plan. 5. Compare credible alternatives and make costs, compatibility, migration, and unresolved questions explicit. 6. Define how success will be evaluated and what happens after acceptance. 7. Keep status `draft` until the repository's approval process changes it. Make public API and DX tradeoffs explicit when central. Keep implementation detail in code, or in a later design record or plan only when the user explicitly requests one. ## Example Input: “Draft an RFC for a new plugin extension model.” Output: A draft proposal with user evidence, goals, non-goals, compatibility and migration costs, credible alternatives, open questions, and success measures.
View on GitHub