Rfc Authoring

RFC Authoring Expertise

Guide the creation of high-quality Request for Comments (RFC) documents using OAK's structured workflow and templates.

OAK RFC Command Workflow

/oak.rfc-create  →  Draft & Iterate  →  /oak.rfc-validate  →  Review Ready

CLI Commands

File Structure

oak/
├── constitution.md          # Project standards (RFCs must align)
└── rfc/
    ├── RFC-001-{slug}.md    # Engineering RFC
    ├── RFC-002-{slug}.md    # Feature RFC
    └── ...

Template Selection Guide

Choose the template that best matches the RFC's primary purpose:

Engineering Template

Use when: Proposing technical implementation changes, API modifications, infrastructure updates, or system design decisions.

Key sections: Detailed Design, API/Interface Changes, Data Model, Migration Strategy, Performance Implications

Signals to use this template:

• "We need to change how X works"
• "Add support for Y in the backend"
• "Refactor the Z subsystem"

Architecture Template (ADR)

Use when: Recording significant architectural decisions that affect multiple systems or establish long-term patterns.

Key sections: Context, Decision, Consequences (Positive/Negative/Neutral), Alternatives Considered

Signals to use this template:

• "Should we use X or Y for this?"
• "We decided to adopt Z pattern"
• "Recording why we chose this approach"

Feature Template

Use when: Proposing user-facing features with UX considerations, acceptance criteria, and rollout planning.

Key sections: User Story, User Experience, Functional Requirements, Acceptance Criteria, Rollout Strategy

Signals to use this template:

• "Users should be able to..."
• "Add a new capability for..."
• "Improve the experience when..."

Process Template

Use when: Proposing changes to team workflows, operational procedures, or organizational processes.

Key sections: Current State, Proposed Process, Roles and Responsibilities, Transition Plan, Training Requirements

Signals to use this template:

• "Change how we handle..."
• "Improve our workflow for..."
• "Standardize the process of..."

Section-by-Section Writing Guide

Summary / Executive Summary

Goal: 2-3 sentences that let a busy stakeholder decide if they need to read more.

Pattern: [Current state problem] + [Proposed change] + [Expected impact]

Good example: "API response times exceed SLA targets during peak hours. This RFC proposes implementing response caching with Redis, reducing P99 latency from 2s to 200ms and improving user satisfaction scores."

Avoid: Vague statements, implementation details, or just restating the title.

Motivation / Problem Statement

Goal: Build urgency with evidence. Answer "why now?" and "why does this matter?"

Include:

• Quantitative evidence (metrics, incident counts, user complaints)
• Qualitative impact (team frustration, technical debt, missed opportunities)
• Business context (OKRs, commitments, competitive pressure)

Pattern: [Evidence of problem] → [Who is affected] → [Cost of inaction]

Goals and Non-Goals

Goals: Use measurable outcomes with the SMART pattern (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound).

Pattern: "Reduce X from Y to Z by [date]" or "Enable users to [action] without [constraint]"

Non-Goals: Explicitly exclude adjacent work to prevent scope creep. Be specific about what you're NOT solving.

Detailed Design / Proposed Solution

Goal: Enough detail that a reviewer can assess feasibility, effort, and risks.

Include:

• Architecture diagrams or component interactions
• Data flows and state changes
• API contracts (request/response examples)
• Edge cases and error handling

Avoid: Implementation-level code (save for PRs), assumptions without evidence.

Drawbacks / Risks

Goal: Show you've thought critically about what could go wrong.

Pattern: For each risk, provide:

1. Risk: What could happen
2. Impact: How severe (High/Medium/Low)
3. Likelihood: How probable (High/Medium/Low)
4. Mitigation: How you'll prevent or respond

Tip: Include operational risks (monitoring gaps, on-call burden), not just technical risks.

Alternatives Considered

Goal: Demonstrate you've evaluated options fairly, not just justified a predetermined choice.

For each alternative:

1. Describe the approach objectively
2. List genuine pros (not strawman arguments)
3. List cons with evidence
4. Explain why it wasn't chosen (the decisive factor)

Tip: A strong Alternatives section builds trust that the proposal is well-reasoned.

Success Metrics

Goal: Define how you'll know the RFC achieved its objectives.

Pattern: "[Metric name]: [Baseline] → [Target] by [date]"

Include: Leading indicators (can measure soon) and lagging indicators (ultimate success).

Quality Checklist Before Review

Before submitting for review, verify:

• No placeholders: All [TODO] and > Provide... prompts replaced with real content
• Measurable goals: Goals include specific numbers and timelines
• Evidence-backed motivation: Problem statement cites data, not just opinion
• Fair alternatives: At least 2 alternatives with genuine pros
• Risk mitigation: Every identified risk has an owner and mitigation plan
• Success criteria: Metrics have baselines and targets
• Cross-references: Related RFCs and ADRs are linked
• Constitution alignment: Proposal follows project standards in oak/constitution.md

Common Pitfalls