rfc-template

name	rfc_template
description	Guidelines and templates for authoring Request for Comments (RFCs). Activate when proposing significant features/refactorings, exploring design alternatives under high ambiguity, or gathering technical consensus.

Request for Comments (RFC) Framework

This skill establishes the standards, templates, and procedures for authoring Request for Comments (RFCs). RFCs are collaborative, conversational design proposals used when an engineering problem is highly ambiguous, complex, or has multiple viable solutions.

---

1. The Relationship Between RFCs and ADRs

According to modern architectural practices (like scaling architecture conversationally):

• RFC (Request for Comments): Fluid, exploratory, collaborative, and optional. It is a tool for discussion. It presents multiple options, asks questions, and solicits opinions. It can be drafted, debated, modified, or rejected.
• ADR (Architecture Decision Record): Rigid, immutable, and authoritative. It is a record of a decision.
• The Pipeline: A successful RFC often culminates in the creation of one or more formal ADRs. However, not all RFCs lead to ADRs. Some RFCs are rejected or postponed, which is still a valuable outcome to document.

---

2. Directory & Naming Conventions

All RFCs must be stored in the dedicated RFC directory:

design/rfc/
  ├── 0001-use-structured-logging.md
  ├── 0002-migrate-to-sqlite-cache.md
  └── 0003-parallelize-type-enrichment.md

• File Format: Markdown (.md)
• Naming Pattern: NNNN-short-descriptive-title.md where NNNN is a sequential 4-digit number starting at 0001.

---

3. Standard RFC Template

Use this standard template when creating a new RFC file in the design/rfc/ directory:

# RFC-[Number]: [Descriptive Proposal Title]

- **Status:** [Draft | Ready for Review | In Review | Approved | Rejected]
- **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Author(s):** [Names]
- **Deciders/Reviewers:** [Names of people or agents requested for feedback]
- **ADR Reference:** [Optional: Link to ADR-XXXX if approved]

## 1. Executive Summary
Provide a high-level, 2–3 sentence summary of the proposal, what problem it addresses, and the recommended solution. Think of this as the elevator pitch.

## 2. Context & Problem Statement
Detail the current situation, the forces at play, and the engineering pain points we are trying to solve. What are the constraints, user requirements, or performance bottlenecks?

## 3. Proposed Solution
Describe the recommended technical design in detail. Include structural layout, API changes, package splits, or new tool registrations. Use Mermaid diagrams or code blocks to illustrate the design.

## 4. Discarded Alternatives
List the other options that were considered but are not recommended. Be explicit about why they are inferior (e.g., "Option B was discarded because it requires an external Docker daemon, breaking our local-only execution constraint").

## 5. Supporting Materials & Prototypes
Document any spikes, benchmark results, or code prototypes. Link to any temporary code created in the `scratch/` directory during exploration.

## 6. Open Questions
List any unresolved issues, technical gaps, or design points where you are explicitly requesting community (or agent) feedback.

## 7. References
Provide links to official documentations, source code declarations, or industry articles that support the proposal.

---

4. Lifecycle States

An RFC progresses through these states:

1. Draft: The proposal is being written and is not yet complete.
2. Ready for Review: The author has completed the proposal and requests input.
3. In Review: Active discussions and comments are happening on the proposal.
4. Approved: Technical consensus is achieved. This RFC will now transition to one or more immutable ADRs.
5. Rejected: The proposal was found to be unviable or out of scope. The reasons for rejection should be documented in the Approval/Rejection Notes section for future reference.