REQUIRED BACKGROUND: the technical-writing skill (read-first, hard rules, truth rules, style).
Overview
A design document is a proposal made discussable: conclusion first, every non-trivial choice in a Why & What box, costs named next to benefits, and fact separated from proposal.
When to invoke, and not
Invoke for anything that argues for a change or records a design: proposals, RFCs, design docs, specs, migration plans, "should we" documents. Do NOT invoke for recording an already-taken decision (recording-decisions), for procedures (writing-runbooks), or for status reports.
Under pressure: a proposal persuades with its numbers and its named costs, and the register rules hold whatever the deadline (the technical-writing rule; "punchy" is not an override). When supplied facts arrive without sources, mark them **[source wanted: ...]** and keep writing (see references/truth.md in the technical-writing skill); never invent a citation and never silently drop the fact.
Skeleton
# Title: what the document does
Subtitle pinning the scope in one sentence
| Status | Draft / Request for comments |
| Owner | [team or role] |
| Scope | [explicit, including what falls outside] |
| Related | [links to sibling documents] |
| Audience | [who must read this] |
1. Summary
[The conclusion immediately. Not the occasion, not the method.]
2. [Context / what was analyzed]
3. [The analysis, split per question]
n. Open questions
n+1. Benefits and costs
[Both. Benefits alone reads as a sales pitch.]
n+2. Residual risks and what not to do
[Only when the design hands work to other teams.]
Closing line: which parts are fact and which are proposal, and where input is wanted.
## Structure rules
- **Number chapters** and cite them as `ch. 7.1`.
- **Goals and non-goals both.** The non-goals (or "explicitly not changed") section states what stays unchanged.
- **Definitions before behavior** when a term is ambiguous: pin "responded", "eligible", "stale" before using them.
- **A grounding section** pins the facts the design rests on: a fact/source table, checked against a named commit. Separate verified facts from what will be built.
- **Appendices** take letters (Appendix A, B) and hold what would bury the main text: config examples, glossaries, inventories.
- **A fact lives in one place.** Link to it; never repeat it, not even across documents in the same repo.
- **Mark unfinished parts** with `**[DRAFT - input wanted]**` instead of omitting them.
- **Open questions get owners**: a name, a role, or an explicit "to be filled by".
- **Residual risks and what NOT to do** close the document when the design ships work to others.
- **No line budget**, but length from repetition or emphasis goes; past roughly 800 lines, split and let the main document link to the parts.
## The Why & What box
Every non-trivial choice gets one; readers react to the box, not to the conclusion.
```markdown
> **Why & What - [the choice in four words]**
>
> **What:** [the choice, one sentence, no justification]
>
> **Why:** [the reasoning. Also name what the choice does NOT solve.]
>
> **Alternatives considered:**
> - *[Alternative]:* [its strongest argument, and why it still lost]
>
> **Fallback:** [what survives if this does not work]
- An alternative dismissed without its strongest argument is a strawman. Name that argument.
- Admitting what the choice does not solve makes the document more credible.
- No box for choices nobody would contest; that is noise.
- An alternative that appears nowhere else in the document does not belong in the box: the reader would never consider it. One such rejection can be justified; several short ones in a row mean the box is padded.
Tone
- The document stays a proposal: "we propose" and "whether that convinces is up to you", not "this becomes the way of working". It sets the direction and leaves the detailed choices open.
- Name what it costs. The benefits chapter ends with the price: what gets harder, what people must unlearn, which freedom disappears.
- No superlatives, no promise language. Concrete figures and verifiable statements.
- The expected outcome may be negative; say so up front: "the expected outcome is that the current queue beats the proposed rewrite; that is a useful result."
Completeness check
Before handing a spec or plan to a reviewer or executor, check the five vagueness defects:
- Unresolved placeholders: any literal TBD, TODO, "fill in later", or clearly incomplete sentence (a marked
**[DRAFT - input wanted]**block is deliberate; an unmarked gap is a defect). - Missing acceptance criteria: a requirement with no concrete, independently testable success condition.
- Undefined references: a type, endpoint, component, or table mentioned but defined nowhere.
- No verifiable output: a task producing nothing a reviewer could inspect (no file path, no command, no observable behavior).
- What without how: an outcome with no implementable direction ("handle errors appropriately" with no definition of appropriate).
For execution plans, add per task: goal, exact files, the change shown, tests with concrete scenarios, and the verify command. Explain any confusing leftover (an odd directory name, a legacy alias) rather than leaving it puzzling.