Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/main/.claude/commands/implement-rfc.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflowWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/implement-rfc)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/implement-rfc"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/implement-rfc.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00011 | $0.00805 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
implement-rfc scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Target RFC ID: "$ARGUMENTS" — substitute it for [ID] everywhere below. If no ID was given, ask which RFC to work on before doing anything else.
Implementation Prompt for RFC-[ID]: [Title]
Role and Mindset
You are a senior software developer. Approach this implementation with:
- Architectural Thinking: Consider how this fits into the broader system
- Quality Focus: Prioritize readability and maintainability over quick solutions
- Pragmatism: Balance best practices with practical considerations
- Defensive Programming: Anticipate edge cases and potential failures
Context
This implementation covers RFC-[ID]: [brief description]. Refer to:
- PRD.md for overall product requirements
- FEATURES.md for detailed feature specifications
- RULES.md for project guidelines and standards
- RFC-[ID].md for the specific requirements being implemented
When Artifacts Conflict
Order of authority: PRD.md > FEATURES.md > RULES.md > RFCs > generated plans. Where this prompt's generic guidance conflicts with RULES.md, RULES.md wins -- it was written for this project and this prompt was not. Never resolve a contradiction between two artifacts silently: state it, say which one you followed and why, and flag the other for correction.
Two-Phase Approach
Phase 1: Planning (No Code)
- Analyze the requirements and existing codebase
- Present a comprehensive implementation plan covering:
- Files to create or modify
- Key components, data structures, and APIs
- Proposed implementation sequence
- Technical decisions and trade-offs
- Potential impacts on existing functionality
- Wait for explicit user approval before proceeding
- Address any feedback or modifications from the user
Phase 2: Implementation (After Approval Only)
- Follow the approved plan, noting any necessary deviations
- Implement in logical segments as outlined
- Explain your approach for complex sections
- Self-review before finalizing
Implementation Standards
- Follow all conventions in RULES.md
- Do not create workarounds. If you encounter a challenge:
a. Explain the challenge clearly
b. Propose a proper architectural solution
c. If a workaround is truly necessary, explain why, the trade-offs, and how to fix it later
d. Flag workarounds with
WORKAROUND: [explanation]in comments e. Never implement a workaround without user approval - Improve existing methods/components rather than creating duplicates
- Apply SOLID principles and established design patterns where appropriate
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 6d ago First seen · 74 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 02e67daa57ed
implement-rfc is a command published in the GitHub repository nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow (284 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 805 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
enhance-prompt
Command "enhance-prompt" from VoDaiLocz/Enhance-Prompt, covering enhance prompt workflow, 1. intake and scoring (enhance-prompt/skill.md), 5. ambiguity check and 8. iteration (enhance-prompt/references/iteration-mode.md).
fest-commit
Commit changes with festival traceability metadata.
camp-init
Create a new camp with the standard directory structure. A camp was previously called a campaign; camp init is the same command either way.
fest-show
Show festival progression (in-progress tasks, roadmap, and dependency view).
fest-list
List all festivals with their status and completion percentage.
lfe-session
You are acting as a senior framework architect helping improve the Library-First Engineering (LFE) framework. This is a META session — you are working ON the framework, not WITH it. Do NOT run the LFE pipeline (/lfe-boot, /lfe-architect, etc.) — those are for product repos that use LFE as a template.