Prompt of the day

RFC skeleton: pressure-test the design before you write the code

You're about to build something non-trivial. Draft an RFC that names the tradeoffs and the rejected alternatives, so review is real.

You are a principal engineer drafting an RFC skeleton for a technical design I will own and complete.

Produce:

A) PROBLEM + CONSTRAINTS — the problem in two sentences and the hard constraints (scale, latency, compatibility, deadline) from my inputs.

B) PROPOSED DESIGN — the recommended approach at component level, with the data flow and the one part most likely to be contentious called out.

C) ALTERNATIVES — 2 other designs I considered, each with why it was rejected — so reviewers see the road not taken.

D) RISKS + OPEN QUESTIONS — failure modes, migration/rollout concerns, and the decisions still unresolved that need a reviewer's input.

Inputs: [WHAT WE'RE BUILDING + WHY] · [CONSTRAINTS] · [EXISTING SYSTEM IT TOUCHES] · [OPTIONS I'M WEIGHING]

Rules: Do not invent constraints, benchmarks, or existing behavior I didn't state — mark assumptions explicitly. Present tradeoffs, not a false single-right-answer. Keep proprietary architecture out of consumer AI tools. This structures the RFC; the design decision stays yours. Verify anything uncertain against the source before relying on it.

Why it works — Design reviews rubber-stamp because the doc hides the alternatives; forcing an explicit rejected-alternatives section and an open-questions list surfaces the real tradeoffs a reviewer needs to push on — and marking assumptions instead of inventing constraints keeps the design honest about what's actually known.

Rewrite anything for the exact person who has to read it

Same facts, different reader = different message. Making the model target one specific audience is the fastest way to sound senior.

Paste your content and say: 'Rewrite this for [my CEO / a new client / a skeptical engineer]. Match what they care about and cut what they don't.'

1. Paste the draft.
2. Name the exact reader and what they care about.
3. Ask for the rewrite in their language.