Loading...
Loading...
Found 5 Skills
Draft a technical Request for Comments (RFC) or technical proposal document based on a rough idea or scattered requirements. Triggers when the user asks to write an RFC, draft a technical proposal, or structure an architecture design.
Use this skill when writing, reviewing, or improving internal engineering documents - RFCs, design docs, post-mortems, runbooks, and knowledge base articles. Triggers on drafting a design proposal, writing an RFC, creating a post-mortem after an incident, building an operational runbook, organizing team knowledge, or improving existing documentation for clarity and completeness.
Use when you need to produce a D2 decision document (RFC/Decision Doc) for a Spec Pack, and need to independently decide whether to execute D0 (bypass design via diversion) and D1 (optional research) even under pressure, avoiding guessing FEATURE_DIR, making up input details, writing design as implementation specifics, or leaving behind TODO/To-Confirm lists.
Create well-structured RFCs and technical proposals for software projects. Use this skill whenever the user wants to write an RFC, technical proposal, design doc, architecture doc, or system design overview. Also trigger when the user says things like "write an RFC", "I need to propose a new system", "create a technical proposal", "document the architecture", "write up the design", "I need a design doc", or "explain the system architecture in a doc". Even if they just say "RFC", "design doc", or "arch doc", use this skill. Covers both RFCs (proposing what to build) and architecture docs (documenting an existing codebase).
Write a structured architecture decision document — an RFC / design doc / technical doc that records *why* a non-trivial technical choice was made, not just what was built. Follows a six-part method: contextualize for a newcomer, state the architecturally-relevant requirements, design components against them with static + dynamic diagrams, weigh every alternative by pros / cons / risks (each risk with impact, probability, mitigation, contingency), record the decision and how it was made, then conclude and communicate. Writes in the language of the request. Reach for it whenever someone is choosing between technical options or documenting one — "write an RFC", "design doc", "architecture decision", "ADR", "tradeoff analysis", "technical documentation of an implementation", "help me decide between X and Y" — even if they never say "RFC". Also fits the retrospective variant: documenting an implementation after the fact (lessons learned, version history).