technical-specification

name	technical-specification
description	Creates technical specification documents with problem statement, requirements, design proposal, trade-off analysis, and decision rationale. Use when the user needs to write a tech spec, design document, or RFC for a proposed system or feature. Do NOT use for ADRs (use `adr-writing`), user guides (use `user-guide`), or API documentation (use `api-documentation`).
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"author":"foundry-skills","version":"1.0.0","tags":"technical-writing documentation guide","category":"writing","subcategory":"technical-writing","depends":"","disclaimer":"none","difficulty":"advanced"}

Technical Specification Writing

When to Use

• User needs to write a technical specification or design document for a proposed feature or system
• User asks for an RFC, tech spec, or engineering design doc
• User wants to document a technical approach with trade-offs and alternatives
• User needs to get buy-in for a technical decision before implementation
• Do NOT use when the user wants to record a decision already made (use adr-writing instead)
• Do NOT use when the user wants to document how to use existing software (use user-guide instead)
• Do NOT use when the user wants API endpoint documentation (use api-documentation instead)
• Do NOT use when the user wants a project proposal with budget and timeline (use project-proposal instead)

Process

1. Collect specification context. Ask the user for:

   • What problem or opportunity this specification addresses
   • Who is affected by this problem (users, teams, systems)
   • Proposed solution at a high level
   • Alternative approaches considered
   • Constraints: timeline, budget, technology limitations, team capacity
   • Success metrics: how to measure whether the solution worked
   • Stakeholders who need to approve or review the spec

2. Write the problem statement with evidence. The problem section must:

   • State the problem in terms of user or business impact, not technical symptoms
   • Quantify the impact where possible (error rates, time wasted, revenue lost)
   • Describe who experiences the problem and how frequently
   • Distinguish between the root problem and its symptoms
   • Establish urgency: why solve this now rather than later

3. Define requirements precisely. Split into:

   • Functional requirements: What the system must do (stated as testable assertions)
   • Non-functional requirements: Performance targets, availability, scalability, security constraints
   • Out of scope: What this spec explicitly does not address (prevents scope creep during review)
   • Number every requirement so reviewers can reference them by ID

4. Describe the proposed design. For the solution:

   • Architecture overview: how components interact (describe a diagram -- boxes, arrows, data flow)
   • Data model: entities, relationships, and key fields
   • API contracts: endpoint signatures or function interfaces
   • Sequence flows: step-by-step interaction for the 2-3 most important user flows
   • State transitions: if the system has state, show the state machine

5. Analyze trade-offs explicitly. For each major design decision:

   • List 2-3 alternatives considered
   • Evaluate each against the requirements from step 3
   • State the trade-off: what you gain and what you sacrifice with each option
   • Explain why the chosen approach wins given the current constraints
   • Use a comparison table for complex decisions

6. Address risks and mitigations. Identify:

   • Technical risks: performance unknowns, integration complexity, data migration hazards

Output Format

# Technical Specification: [Feature or System Name]

**Author:** [Name]
**Status:** Draft | In Review | Approved | Superseded
**Created:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Last updated:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewers:** [Names or teams]

---

## 1. Problem Statement

[2-3 paragraphs describing the problem with quantified impact.]

**Who is affected:** [Users, teams, or systems impacted]
**Frequency:** [How often the problem occurs]
**Impact:** [Quantified business or user impact]

## 2. Requirements

### 2.1 Functional Requirements

| ID | Requirement | Priority |
|----|-------------|----------|
| FR-1 | [System must do X when Y occurs] | Must |
| FR-2 | [System must support Z] | Must |
| FR-3 | [System should do W] | Should |

### 2.2 Non-Functional Requirements

| ID | Requirement | Target |
|----|-------------|--------|
| NFR-1 | Response time for [operation] | < [X]ms at p99 |
| NFR-2 | Availability | [X]% uptime |
| NFR-3 | Data retention | [X] days |

### 2.3 Out of Scope

- [Explicitly excluded item 1]
- [Explicitly excluded item 2]

## 3. Proposed Design

### 3.1 Architecture Overview

[Description of the system architecture. Name each component, its responsibility,
and how it communicates with other components. Describe the diagram: boxes for
services, arrows for data flow, labels for protocols.]

### 3.2 Data Model

| Entity | Key Fields | Relationships |
|--------|-----------|---------------|
| [Entity] | [field: type, field: type] | [has-many Entity2] |
| [Entity2] | [field: type, field: type] | [belongs-to Entity] |

### 3.3 API Design

**[Operation name]**

[METHOD] /[path] Request: { [fields] } Response: { [fields] }

### 3.4 Key Flows

**[Flow name]:**
1. [Actor] sends [request] to [component]
2. [Component] validates [what] and queries [where]
3. [Component] returns [response] to [actor]
4. [Actor] displays [result]

## 4. Alternatives Considered

| Criteria | Option A: [Name] | Option B: [Name] | Option C: [Name] |
|----------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| [Criterion 1] | [Evaluation] | [Evaluation] | [Evaluation] |
| [Criterion 2] | [Evaluation] | [Evaluation] | [Evaluation] |
| [Criterion 3] | [Evaluation] | [Evaluation] | [Evaluation] |
| **Verdict** | [Rejected: reason] | **Selected** | [Rejected: reason] |

## 5. Risks and Mitigations

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
| [Risk 1] | Medium | High | [Specific mitigation steps] |
| [Risk 2] | Low | High | [Specific mitigation steps] |

## 6. Implementation Plan

### Phase 1: [Name] ([Timeline])
- [Deliverable 1]
- [Deliverable 2]

### Phase 2: [Name] ([Timeline])
- [Deliverable 3] (depends on Phase 1)
- [Deliverable 4]

**Rollout strategy:** [Feature flag / Canary / Blue-green / Big bang]

**Rollback plan:** [Exact steps to revert]

## 7. Success Metrics

| Metric | Current | Target | Measurement Method |
|--------|---------|--------|-------------------|
| [Metric 1] | [Baseline] | [Goal] | [How measured] |
| [Metric 2] | [Baseline] | [Goal] | [How measured] |

## 8. Open Questions

- [ ] [Question 1 that needs resolution before implementation]
- [ ] [Question 2]

Rules

1. NEVER write a tech spec without a problem statement -- the spec must justify its own existence
2. NEVER present only one option -- always include at least 2 alternatives with trade-off analysis
3. NEVER leave requirements unnumbered -- reviewers must be able to reference specific requirements
4. NEVER describe the proposed design without defining success metrics that prove it works
5. ALWAYS quantify the problem impact with data or estimates
6. ALWAYS include an "Out of Scope" section to prevent scope creep
7. ALWAYS include a rollback plan in the implementation section
8. Risks must include likelihood, impact, and a specific mitigation -- not just "be careful"
9. Requirements must be testable assertions, not vague goals ("Response time < 200ms at p99" not "Fast responses")
10. State the spec status (Draft, In Review, Approved, Superseded) at the top so readers know the document's authority

Edge Cases

• Spec for a migration (not a new feature): Replace the "Proposed Design" section with a "Migration Strategy" section covering: data migration steps, dual-write period, validation checks, cutover plan, and rollback triggers. Include a compatibility matrix showing which clients work with old vs. new systems.
• Spec requiring cross-team collaboration: Add a RACI matrix (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) as a subsection of the implementation plan. List specific deliverables per team with dependencies between them.
• Spec for a prototype or spike: Shorten the format -- keep Problem Statement, Proposed Approach, and Success Criteria. Skip detailed data models and API designs. Define the spike's timebox and exit criteria (what the spike must answer).
• Security-sensitive specification: Add a dedicated Security Considerations section covering: threat model, authentication/authorization changes, data encryption requirements, audit logging, and compliance implications. Name specific threats and mitigations.
• Spec that supersedes a previous spec: Reference the superseded document by name and date. Summarize what changed and why the original approach is no longer viable. Keep the superseded spec available for historical context.
• Very large spec (multiple systems): Split into a parent spec (problem, requirements, architecture overview) and child specs (one per subsystem with detailed design). Parent spec defines interfaces between subsystems; child specs define internal implementation.

Example

Input: "Write a tech spec for adding real-time notifications to our web app. Currently users have to refresh to see updates. We want WebSocket-based push notifications for mentions, task assignments, and status changes."

Output:

Technical Specification: Real-Time Notifications

Author: Engineering Team Status: Draft Created: 2024-06-15 Last updated: 2024-06-15 Reviewers: Backend Team, Frontend Team, Infrastructure

---

1. Problem Statement

Users must manually refresh the application to see updates to their tasks, mentions, and status changes. In a team of 10, a user refreshes an average of 47 times per day to check for updates (based on analytics from the past 30 days). This creates a 15-second average delay between an event occurring and a user becoming aware of it, slowing collaboration and causing missed time-sensitive updates.

Who is affected: All active users (approximately 2,400 daily active) Frequency: Users check for updates 47 times/day on average Impact: 15-second average awareness delay; 12% of task assignments are seen more than 1 hour late

2. Requirements

2.1 Functional Requirements

ID	Requirement	Priority
FR-1	System must deliver notification to user within 2 seconds of triggering event	Must
FR-2	System must support notification types: mention, task-assignment, status-change	Must
FR-3	Users must be able to mark notifications as read individually or in bulk	Must
FR-4	System must persist notifications for users who are offline and deliver on reconnect	Must
FR-5	Users should be able to configure which notification types they receive	Should

2.2 Non-Functional Requirements

ID	Requirement	Target
NFR-1	End-to-end notification latency	< 2 seconds at p99
NFR-2	WebSocket connection reliability	99.9% uptime
NFR-3	Concurrent connections supported	5,000 per server instance
NFR-4	Notification storage retention	90 days

2.3 Out of Scope

• Email or push notification delivery (mobile notifications are a separate spec)
• Notification grouping or digest summaries
• Admin-to-all broadcast notifications

3. Proposed Design

3.1 Architecture Overview

Three components: a Notification Service (produces events), a WebSocket Gateway (manages connections and delivers events), and a Notification Store (persists unread notifications in PostgreSQL).

When an event occurs (mention, assignment, status change), the source service publishes a message to a Redis Pub/Sub channel. The WebSocket Gateway subscribes to user-specific channels and pushes the message to connected clients. The Notification Store saves the event for offline users.

3.2 Data Model

Entity	Key Fields	Relationships
Notification	id: uuid, user_id: uuid, type: enum, payload: jsonb, read: boolean, created_at: timestamp	belongs-to User
NotificationPreference	user_id: uuid, type: enum, enabled: boolean	belongs-to User

3.3 Key Flows

User receives a real-time notification:

1. Source service publishes event to Redis channel notifications:{user_id}
2. Notification Service writes the notification to PostgreSQL
3. WebSocket Gateway receives the Redis message and looks up active connection for user_id
4. Gateway sends JSON payload over WebSocket to the client
5. Client displays notification badge and toast message

4. Alternatives Considered

Criteria	Option A: WebSocket + Redis Pub/Sub	Option B: Server-Sent Events (SSE)	Option C: Long Polling
Latency	Sub-second delivery	Sub-second delivery	1-30 second delay (poll interval)
Bidirectional	Yes (read receipts over same connection)	No (requires separate POST for reads)	No
Browser support	All modern browsers	All modern browsers	All browsers
Infrastructure	Requires WebSocket-aware load balancer	Standard HTTP infrastructure	Standard HTTP infrastructure
Scalability	Horizontal with Redis	Horizontal with Redis	Higher server load per connection
Verdict	Selected	Rejected: no bidirectional support	Rejected: latency unacceptable

5. Risks and Mitigations

Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation
WebSocket connections overwhelm server memory	Medium	High	Connection pooling with 5,000 cap per instance; horizontal scaling behind WebSocket-aware ALB
Redis Pub/Sub message loss during failover	Low	Medium	Write notifications to PostgreSQL before publishing to Redis; client fetches missed notifications on reconnect
Client reconnection storms after deployment	Medium	Medium	Implement exponential backoff with jitter on client reconnect logic

6. Implementation Plan

Phase 1: Backend Infrastructure (2 weeks)

• WebSocket Gateway service with Redis Pub/Sub subscription
• Notification Store with PostgreSQL schema and write path
• Health check and monitoring endpoints

Phase 2: Client Integration (1 week)

• WebSocket client with auto-reconnect and backoff
• Notification UI component (badge count, dropdown list, toast)
• Mark-as-read API integration

Phase 3: Notification Preferences (1 week)

• Preference storage and API
• Filtering in the Gateway before delivery

Rollout strategy: Feature flag (notifications.realtime.enabled) rolled out to 10% of users, then 50%, then 100% over 1 week.

Rollback plan: Disable the feature flag. Client falls back to polling. No data migration needed -- notifications are still stored in PostgreSQL.

7. Success Metrics

Metric	Current	Target	Measurement Method
Average notification awareness delay	15 seconds	< 2 seconds	Time between event creation and client acknowledgment
Daily page refreshes per user	47	< 10	Analytics event tracking
Late task assignments (>1 hour)	12%	< 2%	Task assignment timestamp vs. first-view timestamp

8. Open Questions

• Should notifications be encrypted at rest in PostgreSQL?
• What is the maximum payload size for a single notification?
• Do we need WebSocket authentication refresh, or is the initial handshake token sufficient?