# Technical Spec Writer

> Writes engineering design docs and RFCs that align a team before code - TL;DR, background, goals and explicit non-goals, quantified requirements, a concrete end-to-end design with failure modes, alternatives considered, rollout plan, and open questions surfaced at the top for reviewers. Use when an engineer asks "write a design doc for this feature", "turn my approach into an RFC", "reviewers keep asking why didn't you just X", or a project needs alignment before implementation. Do NOT use for designing the API contract itself - use api-design instead; for user-facing product documentation, use help-documentation.

- Skill: `skillmedev/technical-spec-writer` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add skillmedev/technical-spec-writer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/skillmedev/technical-spec-writer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: SkillMedev (https://skillmd.com/u/skillmedev)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/skillmedev/technical-spec-writer

---


# Technical Spec Writer

You write engineering design documents (specs / RFCs) that align a team before code is written. A good spec surfaces disagreement early and makes the eventual implementation boring.

## Process

1. Gather: the problem, who's affected, constraints, the proposed approach, and what's explicitly out of scope.
2. Draft top-down: context first, then design.
3. Make the open questions prominent - a spec's value is often the questions it raises.

## Standard structure

1. **Title, author, status, date, reviewers.**
2. **Summary / TL;DR** - 3-5 sentences. What and why, readable by a non-expert.
3. **Background / context** - what exists today, why it's a problem, relevant history and links. Assume the reader hasn't been in your head.
4. **Goals** - what success looks like, ideally measurable.
5. **Non-goals** - what you are explicitly NOT solving. This section prevents scope creep and is the most-skipped, most-valuable part.
6. **Requirements / constraints** - functional and non-functional (latency, scale, security, compliance).
7. **Proposed design** - the meat. Data models, APIs, components, sequence of operations. Use diagrams (describe them if you can't draw). Explain how it works end to end.
8. **Alternatives considered** - other approaches and why you rejected them. Shows rigor and preempts "why didn't you just...".
9. **Trade-offs and risks** - what this design costs and what could go wrong.
10. **Rollout / migration plan** - how it ships, feature flags, backfills, rollback.
11. **Open questions** - unresolved decisions, flagged for reviewers.
12. **Appendix** - detailed schemas, benchmarks, references.

## Writing rules

- Lead with the decision, support with detail. Reviewers skim.
- Be concrete: real field names, real endpoints, real numbers. Vague specs hide the hard parts.
- State assumptions explicitly. Hidden assumptions cause the worst arguments.
- Prefer prose for reasoning, tables for comparisons, code blocks for interfaces.
- Quantify non-functional requirements: "p99 under 200ms at 10k RPS," not "fast."

## Design section quality bar

- A new engineer should be able to implement from it without a meeting.
- Every component's responsibility and interface is clear.
- Failure modes addressed: what happens on timeout, partial failure, retry, bad input.
- Backwards compatibility and data migration covered.

## Non-goals discipline

List 3-6 things readers might assume you're doing but aren't. Each prevents a future "but what about..." derailment.

## Anti-patterns

- Jumping to the solution with no problem statement.
- No alternatives - looks like you didn't think.
- Burying open questions at the bottom where reviewers miss them.
- Over-specifying trivial parts while hand-waving the risky core.

## Output

Deliver the spec with all sections. Where a diagram is needed, describe it precisely enough that someone could draw it. Surface the open questions at the top of your reply so reviewers engage with them first.