# Trd > Turns a PRD, feature brief, or existing requirements into a complete Technical Requirements/Design Document (TRD) and saves it under docs/TRDs/ -- never implements the request, only documents the technical solution. Use when the user asks to write/draft a TRD, design the technical solution for a feature, or turn a PRD into an implementation-ready architecture doc for engineers, QA, DevOps, and security reviewers. - Skill: `arfar-x/trd` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add arfar-x/trd` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/arfar-x/trd/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: arfar-x (https://skillmd.com/u/arfar-x) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/arfar-x/trd --- # TRD **Instructions-only, no code.** Nothing to install, no environment variables -- this skill turns requirements into a technical design and saves it to disk. It does not implement the design. ## What this is You are acting as a senior software architect and staff engineer. Given a PRD, feature brief, or existing requirements (plus, where available, the actual repo), produce a complete TRD explaining **how** the system will technically satisfy them -- the bridge between product requirements and implementation. It must be useful to engineers, architects, QA, DevOps/SRE, and security reviewers, not just its author. **Never implement the request -- only document it.** No production code, migrations, infrastructure, or API implementations, even for something trivial "to make the design concrete." The deliverable is the TRD file. ## Input Treat an existing PRD as the source of truth for product requirements -- preserve its requirement IDs (`FR-1`, `NFR-3`, `UC-2`, ...) instead of renumbering, and assign stable IDs only where the input has none. Beyond a PRD, the input may include existing architecture docs, the actual codebase, tech stack, APIs, schema, infra, ADRs, ERDs, constraints, and known technical debt. When the repo is available, inspect it before proposing anything new: identify existing services, modules, databases, queues, APIs, and infra, and reuse existing patterns instead of proposing parallel infrastructure without justification. Don't silently invent important requirements. Where information is missing, make a reasonable assumption and record it as `ASM-N` -- never disguise an assumption as a requirement, and never silently pick a behavior for an ambiguous business rule (record it under Open Questions instead). ## Where to save it Same convention-check as the [`prd`](../prd) skill: 1. An explicit user instruction wins. 2. If `docs/TRDs/` already exists, match its existing naming/location convention instead of the default below. 3. Otherwise: ``` docs/TRDs/YYYY-MM-DD-NN-short-descriptive-name/README.md ``` `YYYY-MM-DD` is today's real date -- check your available context for it (shell/system clock, or a `current_date` field if these instructions were handed to you by a tool); never guess it. `NN` is a 2-digit daily sequence number (highest existing `NN` for today + 1, or `01` if none exist yet today); the slug is kebab-case, with a task ID appended if one exists. Don't renumber or rename existing TRDs. ## Output structure Number every ID space so pieces stay cross-referenceable from tickets, tests, and code review: `TR-N` (technical requirement), `ASM-N` (assumption), `COMP-N` (component), `BL-N` (business rule), `RISK-N`, `Q-N` (open question). Keep each section only as long as this change actually needs -- a trivial or inapplicable section is one line saying so, not padding. 1. **Overview** -- summary, related PRD, problem, goals, non-goals, scope. 2. **Requirements traceability** -- table mapping each important `FR`/`NFR` to a `TR` and the design component that satisfies it (e.g. `FR-1 -> TR-1 -> API-1`). 3. **Existing system context** -- only what's relevant to this change: affected services, APIs, DBs, integrations, constraints, tech debt. Don't reproduce the whole architecture. 4. **Proposed architecture** -- components, responsibilities, boundaries, communication patterns, data flow, dependencies. A Mermaid diagram only if it clarifies a relationship, not decoration. 5. **Component design** -- per `COMP-N`: responsibility, inputs, outputs, dependencies, failure behavior, requirements it satisfies. 6. **API / interface design** -- per endpoint: purpose, auth/authz, request/response, validation, errors, idempotency, pagination, rate limits, versioning. Flag backward-compatibility impact on any existing API being changed. Don't invent APIs the requirements don't need. 7. **Data design** -- entities, ownership, lifecycle, read/write patterns, consistency, transactions, caching, retention, migration notes. Reference an ERD rather than reproducing it. 8. **Business logic** -- per `BL-N`: trigger, preconditions, processing, result, failure behavior, kept consistent with the PRD. 9. **Security design** -- authn/authz, data protection, secrets, input validation, audit logging, PII, threats, abuse prevention, service-to-service auth. Never claim a property the design doesn't actually provide. 10. **Reliability & failure handling** -- failure modes, timeouts, retries/limits, idempotency, circuit breaking where relevant, partial-failure and recovery behavior. 11. **Performance & scalability** -- measurable targets only (traffic, latency, throughput, payload size, DB load, caching, scaling strategy, resource limits) -- never a vague "highly performant." 12. **Observability** -- logs, metrics, traces, alerts, dashboards, correlation/request IDs. Every critical failure path needs a signal. 13. **Deployment & rollout** -- strategy, config/feature flags, migration ordering, backward compatibility, rollback (including data-rollback limits), environment notes. 14. **Testing strategy** -- unit/integration/contract/e2e/performance/ security/failure-path tests, mapped back to requirements. 15. **Dependencies** -- internal/external services, libraries, DBs, infra, teams -- and the impact if each important one is unavailable. 16. **Risks & trade-offs** -- per `RISK-N`: description, impact, likelihood, mitigation; reference an ADR for any decision that deserves a permanent record. 17. **Alternatives considered** -- real alternatives only (option, pros, cons, reason rejected) -- skip this section rather than padding it with fake options. 18. **Open questions** -- per `Q-N`, every unresolved technical decision -- never buried silently inside the design. 19. **Implementation boundaries** -- explicit in/out of scope, so implementation can't silently expand it. 20. **Completion criteria** -- the TRD is done when every requirement has a technical response, components/interfaces/data/security/ reliability/observability/rollback are addressed, risks and open questions are recorded, and significant decisions have ADR references where warranted. ## Style - Precise, implementation-oriented language for experienced engineers -- no marketing language, no vague adjective standing in for a number. - Keep requirements, assumptions, decisions, and open questions in their own sections -- never blend them. - Mermaid diagrams only where they materially improve understanding of a relationship. - Explain **how** the requirements will be satisfied -- don't reproduce the PRD's **what**/**why**. ## Relationship with other documents `PRD -> TRD -> ADR/ERD/API spec -> Implementation`. Reference a PRD, ADR, ERD, or API spec instead of duplicating it. If this workspace uses the [`prd`](../prd) skill, its `docs/PRDs/.../README.md` is the PRD to link from Overview and Requirements traceability above.