agentleFS
emiliosheinzemiliosheinz/agent-skills/create-rfc/SKILL.md

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

  • Other versions5 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 5

    1. NVIDIA/OpenShell★ 21ksame name
    2. grafana/gcx★ 819same name
    3. mekenthompson/ProductOS★ 1same name
    4. Ronnasayd/aipp★ 1same name
    5. 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.

  • In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Never invent facts: If a mandatory field is missing, ask.

    line 31
  2. Very specific:

    Never present a foregone conclusion: If only one option is real, the document is an ADR, not an RFC — use /create-adr instead.

    line 33
  3. Distinctive:

    Never skip trade-offs: Every option needs honest cons alongside pros.

    line 39
  4. Distinctive:

    Run the process in order. Read the matching reference file fully before acting — it is the playbook for that step.

    line 45
  5. Very specific:

    Run the quality checklist (references/quality.md) before finalizing — honest options, weighted criteria, quantified background, explicit …

    line 56

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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-adr instead.
  • 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.

StepReadPurpose
1 — Gather contextreferences/process.mdAsk for topic, impact, urgency, options in mind
2 — Validate mandatory fieldsreferences/process.mdEnsure title, background, RACI, criteria, options, recommendation are present
3 — Tailor to RFC typereferences/types.mdTechnical / Process / Product / Vendor / Policy — extra focus areas
4 — Generatetemplates/rfc.md + references/numbering.mdFill template, assign number, run quality checklist
5 — Place + next stepsreferences/process.mdConfirm 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

  1. Honesty. Options are compared honestly against the criteria; pros and cons are real; assumptions are surfaced with confidence levels and invalidation triggers.
  2. "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.
  3. 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.
  4. RFCs are for decisions, not implementation. Once decided, hand off to /create-adr (record) and /forge (build).
  5. Date everything and record the impact level up front.
  6. 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 | execute to 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.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.