Octocode Rfc Generator

Octocode RFC Generator

Produce evidence-backed decisions that an implementer and reviewer can execute. Flow: UNDERSTAND → RESEARCH → PREREQUISITES → COMPARE → WRITE → CLOSE QUESTIONS → KPI → VALIDATE → DELIVER. For existing RFCs, run REASSESS (see references/workflow.md § Reassess existing RFCs) instead of WRITE — audit against live code, not prior checkboxes.

Lobby rules

• Skip RFC mode for trivial edits. Ask one focused question when uncertainty changes shape, owner, scope, or decision criteria.
• Compare at least two alternatives, including do-nothing, unless the user explicitly requests one implementation plan.
• Recommendations require verifiable facts; cite exact anchors and commands/checks that actually ran.
• RFC.md owns goals, scope, and decision. Other files link to its anchors rather than restating them.
• Resolve every open question with evidence or an explicit deferral; no recommendation may rest on an uncertain claim.
• Order implementation by dependency, not estimates; bind requirements to acceptance and verification.
• Reviewing, rating, or cleaning up .octocode/rfc/ (delete/implemented/fixed calls) always requires a dated ## Audit Reasoning block written into the RFC itself, backed by fresh reads of the live code.
• Never assert RFC status from memory or from another RFC's claims.
• Stop when: the change is a trivial one-file edit (route to octocode-research); a brainstorming handoff is marked Prototype First, Narrow, Park, or not ready; uncertainty changes artifact shape, owner, scope, or tradeoff priority; two research attempts fail (state what is known and ask for direction); scope needs splitting into separate RFCs or phases; an unresolved blocker would have to be assumed satisfied; or a save, delete, or archive under .octocode/rfc/ awaits explicit approval.

Artifact route

• Small, reversible, single-package work: produce only RFC.md with plan, acceptance, and inline references.
• Otherwise, after save approval, create <workspace>/.octocode/rfc/{name}/: RFC.md (decide), PREREQUISITES.md (ready, existing code only), IMPLEMENTATION.md (build), KPI.md (verify), and RESOURCES.md (source appendix).

Smart routes — load only what the current step needs

• To understand the ask and select a mode before drafting, load references/workflow.md — gates, claim ledger, artifact set, traceability, validation, and delivery order.
• When researching evidence, load references/octocode.md then references/research-playbook.md — delegate exact research and keep claims auditable.
• When existing code has readiness work, load references/rfc-prerequisites.md before planning — expose baselines, blockers, owners, and setup.
• When comparing options and writing the decision, load references/rfc-template.md — structure alternatives, goals/non-goals, reversibility, and pre-mortem.
• When building the execution plan, load references/rfc-implementation.md — close open questions, order dependencies, and define rollout/rollback.
• When defining acceptance and KPI targets, load references/rfc-kpi.md — connect user stories, metrics, decision rules, and verification in a traceability matrix.
• When preserving sources, load references/rfc-resources.md — record provenance without moving decisive citations out of the RFC.
• When you reassess, rate, or clean up an existing RFC, load references/rfc-audit.md — the dated ## Audit Reasoning block, with live-code evidence, is required before any keep/fix/delete call.
• When improving this skill, prefer octocode-graph-eval; otherwise load references/improve-loop.md — enforce measurable accept/revert.

Related routes and verification

• Use octocode-brainstorming before RFC when worth-building is unresolved; octocode-research to close factual questions; octocode-graph-eval for KPI rigor.
• Use octocode-skills when changing this skill folder.
• Before delivery validate the document contract section by section and report the real result.