create-rfc
Skill20 starsChanged 26 days agoMITView on GitHub
Writes a Request for Comments (RFC): proposes a change, compares alternatives against explicit decision criteria, and drives a decision across teams. TRIGGER when: the user asks to create or write an RFC, draft a proposal, compare options, align stakeholders, get approval for a significant change, or propose a technical/process/product/vendor/policy change before deciding. SKIP for: decisions that have already been made (use `/create-adr` to record them), implementation planning or breaking work into tasks (use `/forge plan`), or informal one-off asks that don't need stakeholder alignment.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- grafana/gcxtheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- Ronnasayd/aipptheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- NVIDIA/OpenShelltheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
- mekenthompson/ProductOStheir own version, first seen Jul 23, 2026
- popovicsandras/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 6, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- NVIDIA/OpenShell★ 21ksame name
- grafana/gcx★ 819same name
- mekenthompson/ProductOS★ 1same name
- Ronnasayd/aipp★ 1same name
- popovicsandras/agent-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 31
Never invent facts: If a mandatory field is missing, ask.
- Very specific: line 33
Never present a foregone conclusion: If only one option is real, the document is an ADR, not an RFC — use /create-adr instead.
- Distinctive: line 39
Never skip trade-offs: Every option needs honest cons alongside pros.
- Distinctive: line 45
Run the process in order. Read the matching reference file fully before acting — it is the playbook for that step.
- Very specific: line 56
Run the quality checklist (references/quality.md) before finalizing — honest options, weighted criteria, quantified background, explicit …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Create RFC
Produce one RFC per invocation. An RFC proposes a decision that has not
yet been made and drives stakeholder alignment; if the decision is already
made, use /create-adr to record it. Follow the five-step process in
order: Step 2 validates the mandatory fields, and drafting starts once every
one of them is present.
Hard rules
- Never invent facts. If a mandatory field is missing, ask. Never fill Background, Assumptions, or Options with plausible-sounding filler.
- Never present a foregone conclusion. If only one option is real, the
document is an ADR, not an RFC — use
/create-adrinstead. - Decision criteria come before options. Criteria written after options look like justification for a preferred choice.
- Include "do nothing" as an explicit option for any significant change — Universal rule 2 defines which changes those are.
- Never skip trade-offs. Every option needs honest cons alongside pros.
- Write in the user's language — the one they are using in this session, every section of the document included.
Dispatch
Run the process in order. Read the matching reference file fully before acting — it is the playbook for that step.
| Step | Read | Purpose |
| 1 — Gather context | references/process.md | Ask for topic, impact, urgency, options in mind |
| 2 — Validate mandatory fields | references/process.md | Ensure title, background, RACI, criteria, options, recommendation are present |
| 3 — Tailor to RFC type | references/types.md | Technical / Process / Product / Vendor / Policy — extra focus areas |
| 4 — Generate | templates/rfc.md + references/numbering.md | Fill template, assign number, run quality checklist |
| 5 — Place + next steps | references/process.md | Confirm file location, print summary + follow-ups |
Run the quality checklist (references/quality.md) before finalizing —
honest options, weighted criteria, quantified background, explicit
assumptions.
Template
Pure markdown scaffold. Load only when writing:
templates/rfc.md— mandatory + recommended sections. Delete any recommended section that would be empty; keep every mandatory section even if the value is*to be confirmed*.
Universal rules
- Honesty. Options are compared honestly against the criteria; pros and cons are real; assumptions are surfaced with confidence levels and invalidation triggers.
- "Do nothing" is always an option for significant changes — it forces honest evaluation of whether change is worth the cost. Significant means the impact level recorded in Step 1 is HIGH or MEDIUM (multiple teams/systems/users, or one whole team or system). A LOW-impact change — limited scope, easily reversible — may omit the status quo, and says so in one line rather than leaving the reader to wonder. This is the only definition of significant in this skill; every other mention keys to it.
- Outcome is a placeholder during drafting — fill it after the decision is made, then link to the resulting ADR if the decision is worth preserving.
- RFCs are for decisions, not implementation. Once decided, hand off
to
/create-adr(record) and/forge(build). - Date everything and record the impact level up front.
- Confirm before writing. Suggest the file path in Step 5; write only after the user confirms placement.
Sibling skills
Reach for these at any point in the flow:
/create-adr— the decision has been made. Use ADR to record the what/why/consequences as an immutable historical record. RFC → decision → ADR is the natural flow for significant choices./forge— spec-driven implementation. Once the RFC is decided, use/forge specify | design | plan | executeto break the chosen option into shippable work.
Attribution
Based on create-rfc by Tech Leads Club, licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Changes have been made to the original.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

