Use when performing rfc template — structures a Request for Comments (RFC) document for proposing significant technical changes that require cross-team input and approval. This template guides authors through problem definition, proposed solution, alternatives analysis, and rollout planning, ensuring proposals are comprehensive enough for informed review.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add cloudthinker-ai/CloudSkills --skill rfc-template --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Rfc Template?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cloudthinker-ai-rfc-template)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: rfc-template
enabled: true
description: |
Use when performing rfc template — structures a Request for Comments (RFC)
document for proposing significant technical changes that require cross-team
input and approval. This template guides authors through problem definition,
proposed solution, alternatives analysis, and rollout planning, ensuring
proposals are comprehensive enough for informed review.
required_connections:
- prefix: wiki
label: "Documentation Platform"
config_fields:
- key: rfc_number
label: "RFC Number"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., RFC-2026-015"
- key: title
label: "RFC Title"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., Migrate to event-driven architecture"
- key: author
label: "Author"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., Jane Smith"
features:
- RFC
- DOCUMENTATION
- ARCHITECTURE
---
# Request for Comments (RFC)
## Phase 1: Problem Statement
Define the problem clearly and concisely.
1. - [ ] What is the current state?
2. - [ ] What is the problem or opportunity?
3. - [ ] Who is affected?
4. - [ ] What is the cost of inaction?
5. - [ ] What are the success criteria for a solution?
**Metadata:**
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| RFC Number | |
| Title | |
| Author | |
| Status | Draft / Open for Comment / Final Comment Period / Accepted / Rejected |
| Created | |
| Comment Deadline | |
| Reviewers | |
## Phase 2: Proposed Solution
Describe the proposed approach in detail.
1. - [ ] High-level overview (1-2 paragraphs)
2. - [ ] Detailed technical design
3. - [ ] Architecture diagrams
4. - [ ] API changes or new APIs
5. - [ ] Data model changes
6. - [ ] User experience changes
**Scope:**
- [ ] What is in scope for this RFC
- [ ] What is explicitly out of scope
- [ ] What are the dependencies
## Phase 3: Alternatives Considered
| Alternative | Description | Why Not Chosen |
|------------|------------|----------------|
| | | |
For each alternative:
- [ ] Describe the approach
- [ ] List advantages over the proposed solution
- [ ] List disadvantages compared to the proposed solution
## Phase 4: Impact Analysis
**Compatibility:**
- [ ] Backward compatible: Y/N
- [ ] Migration required: Y/N
- [ ] Breaking changes: list
**Performance:**
- [ ] Expected performance impact
- [ ] Benchmarks or estimates
**Security:**
- [ ] Security implications
- [ ] New attack surfaces
**Cost:**
- [ ] Infrastructure cost changes
- [ ] Engineering effort estimate
- [ ] Ongoing maintenance cost
**Risk Assessment:**
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
| | | | |
## Phase 5: Rollout Plan
1. - [ ] Phase 1: ___ (description, timeline, success criteria)
2. - [ ] Phase 2: ___ (description, timeline, success criteria)
3. - [ ] Phase 3: ___ (description, timeline, success criteria)
- [ ] Rollback plan
- [ ] Feature flag strategy
- [ ] Monitoring and validation approach
## Phase 6: Open Questions
| Question | Raised By | Status | Resolution |
|----------|-----------|--------|------------|
| | | | |
## Counter-Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Counter | Why |
|----------|---------|-----|
| "We can skip some steps for this case" | Adapt the workflow steps, don't skip them | Skipped steps are where incidents and oversights originate |
| "The user seems to already know what to do" | Complete all workflow phases with the user | The workflow catches blind spots that experience alone misses |
| "This is a minor case, full process is overkill" | Scale the process down, don't turn it off | Minor cases become major when unstructured; the process scales, not disappears |
| "I'll fill in the details later" | Complete each section before moving on | Deferred details are forgotten; real-time capture is more accurate |
| "The template output isn't necessary" | Always produce the structured output format | Structured output enables comparison, audit trails, and handoff to other teams |
## Output Format
### RFC Summary
- **RFC:** ___
- **Title:** ___
- **Status:** ___
- **Decision:** Accepted / Rejected / Deferred
- **Decision Date:** ___
- **Decision Rationale:** ___
### Action Items
- [ ] Address all open questions
- [ ] Incorporate reviewer feedback
- [ ] Create implementation plan and tickets
- [ ] Schedule kickoff for implementation
- [ ] Archive RFC in decision log
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!