Develop Design Rationale
Documents the reasoning behind design decisions including alternatives considered, trade-offs evaluated, and principles applied. Use when making significant UX decisions, aligning with stakeholders on design direction, or preserving design context for future reference.
MCP get_skill({ skillId: "design-rationale-c4690799" })Use this skill with your agent
Create a free account and connect via MCP
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 --> # Design Rationale A design rationale document captures the "why" behind design decisions.the context, constraints, alternatives considered, and reasoning that led to a particular solution. While designs themselves show what was built, rationale documents preserve institutional knowledge about why it was built that way. ## When to Use - When making significant UX decisions that affect user experience - Before design reviews to prepare stakeholder discussions - When multiple valid approaches exist and the choice needs justification - To onboard new team members to existing design decisions - When revisiting past decisions to understand original reasoning - During design system evolution to document pattern choices ## When NOT to Use - The decision is architectural or a technology selection -> use `develop-adr` (Nygard format) - You need stakeholder alignment on the overall solution direction -> use `develop-solution-brief` - You are documenting exploration findings rather than a decision -> use `develop-spike-summary` - The decision is trivially reversible and low-stakes: a rationale document adds ceremony; record the reasoning in the PR or ticket instead ## Instructions When asked to document design rationale, follow these steps: 1. **State the Decision** Begin with a clear, one-sentence summary of what design decision was made. This becomes the title and reference point for the document. 2. **Describe the Context** Explain the situation that prompted this decision. What problem were you solving? What constraints existed? What user needs informed the direction? Include relevant research findings. 3. **List Options Considered** Document at least 2-3 alternatives that were evaluated. For each option, describe what it would look like and its key characteristics. Be fair to all options.avoid strawmen. 4. **Define Evaluation Criteria** Specify how options were assessed: usability heuristics, technical feasibility, brand alignment, user research findings, business requirements, or design principles. 5. **Explain the Reasoning** Walk through why the chosen option best meets the criteria. Be explicit about trade-offs.what you gained and what you sacrificed. Acknowledge where the decision is reversible vs. irreversible. 6. **Document Trade-offs Accepted** Every design decision involves trade-offs. Name what you gave up and why it was acceptable. This honesty helps future teams understand constraints. 7. **Note Follow-up Considerations** Capture anything that needs attention later: metrics to watch, conditions that might warrant revisiting the decision, or related decisions to make. ## Output Format Use the template in `references/TEMPLATE.md` to structure the output. A complete rationale fills every template section: Decision Summary; Context; Options Considered; Evaluation; Decision Rationale; Trade-offs Accepted; Reversibility; Follow-up Considerations; Supporting Materials; and Decision History. ## Quality Checklist Before finalizing, verify: - [ ] Decision is clearly stated in one sentence - [ ] Context explains the "why now" and constraints - [ ] Multiple alternatives are documented fairly - [ ] Evaluation criteria are explicit - [ ] Reasoning addresses why chosen option beats alternatives - [ ] Trade-offs are honestly acknowledged - [ ] A reader who inherits this design can reconstruct why the chosen option won without asking anyone ## Examples See `references/EXAMPLE.md` for a completed example.
Related Skills
More skills in Software Engineering
Accessibility Standards
Comprehensive web accessibility standards based on WCAG 2.2 AA, with 38+ anti-patterns, legal enforcement context (EAA, ADA Title II), WAI-ARIA patterns, and framework-specific fixes for modern web frameworks and libraries.
Accord
Authoring unified specification packages across Business/Development/Design teams via staged elaboration (L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Detail → L3 Acceptance Criteria). No code. Use when authoring cross-team specs, building L0-L3 packages, or aligning Biz/Dev/Design on a single source of truth.
Acquire Codebase Knowledge
Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.
Acreadiness Assess
Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when asked to assess, audit, or score the AI readiness of a repo.
Acreadiness Generate Instructions
Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in the AI Tooling pillar.
Acreadiness Policy
Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights, CI gating, or wants org-wide standardisation.
Explore Other Categories
Skills from other categories with shared topics
Define Hypothesis
Defines a testable hypothesis with clear success metrics and a validation approach. Use when forming assumptions to test or aligning a team on what success looks like, before any experiment is designed. To design the A/B test or experiment that will validate the hypothesis, use measure-experiment-design.
Define Jtbd Canvas
Creates a Jobs to be Done canvas capturing the functional, emotional, and social dimensions of a customer job. Use when deeply understanding customer motivations, designing for jobs, or reframing product positioning.
Define Opportunity Tree
Creates an opportunity solution tree mapping desired outcomes to opportunities and potential solutions. Use for outcome-driven product discovery, prioritization, or communicating product strategy.