ring-writing-trds

name: ring:writing-trds description: "Writing a Technical Requirements Document that designs the technical architecture of the system or feature: components and boundaries, data flow, integration points, and failure modes — in technology-agnostic patterns, plus auth/pagination and BFF contracts for fullstack. Gate 3 of ring:planning-large-features (after ring:mapping-feature-relationships, before ring:designing-api-contracts) and Gate 2 of ring:planning-small-features (after ring:writing-prds, before ring:writing-plans). Use when the PRD passed validation. Skip when the PRD is unvalidated or the architecture is already documented."

TRD Creation — Architecture Before Implementation

When to use

• PRD passed Gate 1
• Feature Map passed Gate 2 (Large Track only)
• About to design technical architecture

Skip when

• PRD not validated → complete Gate 1 first
• Architecture already documented → proceed to API Design (Large) or plan (Small)
• Pure business requirement change → update PRD

Sequence

Runs before: ring:designing-api-contracts (Large Track) / ring:writing-plans (Small Track) Runs after: ring:mapping-feature-relationships (Large Track) / ring:writing-prds (Small Track)

The TRD designs the technical architecture of the system or feature: components and their boundaries, data flow between them, integration points, and failure modes — using technology-agnostic patterns before concrete technology choices.

Handling Missing Information

When specific details are not provided (tech stack, architecture, team size, deployment model, etc.):

• Infer from project name, context, existing codebase patterns, and git history
• Document assumptions explicitly in a ## Assumptions section at the top of the TRD
• NEVER block execution to ask clarifying questions — assume and proceed
• Flag assumptions that carry high risk for the reader to validate (mark as ⚠️ Assumption:)
• The only valid exception: tech stack ambiguity in Step 0 when auto-detection fails and no codebase files exist to infer from

Step -1: Design Validation Check (UI Features Only, Conditional)

Read PRD and detect UI indicators (user stories with "see", "view", "click", "page", "screen", "button", "form"; features involving login, dashboard, settings, reports, notifications).

If feature has UI:

• Check docs/pre-dev/{feature}/design-validation.md (produced by a standalone ring:validating-ux-completeness run, if one happened)
• If present → honor its verdict: "DESIGN VALIDATED" proceeds; any other verdict means fix the listed design gaps before (or alongside) the TRD
• If absent → proceed and add to ## Assumptions: ⚠️ UX risk: no design validation ran for this UI feature — consider a standalone ring:validating-ux-completeness pass

If backend-only: Skip to Step 0.

Step 0: Tech Stack Definition (HARD GATE)

Step 0.1: Auto-Detect or Ask

• go.mod exists → Go
• package.json with react/next → Frontend TS
• package.json with express/fastify/nestjs → Backend TS
• Ambiguous → AskUserQuestion: "What is the primary technology stack?"

Step 0.2: Load Ring Standards via WebFetch

WebFetch base URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LerianStudio/ring/main/dev-team/docs/standards/

Step 0.3: Read PROJECT_RULES.md

Check: docs/PROJECT_RULES.md → docs/STANDARDS.md (legacy) → if neither exists, note the absence and proceed with Ring standards.

Step 0.4: Analyze PRD and Suggest Technologies

Read PRD, extract requirements, suggest technologies per category, confirm with user.

AskUserQuestion: "What deployment model?" Options: Cloud, On-Premise, Hybrid

Step 0.5: Document in TRD Metadata

TRD header must include: feature, gate: 3 (Large) / gate: 2 (Small), deployment.model, tech_stack.primary, tech_stack.standards_loaded[], project_technologies[] (category, prd_requirement, choice, rationale per decision). On Large Track this flows to Gates 4–6.

Mandatory Workflow

Technology Abstraction Rules

TRD never includes: product names with versions, package manager commands, cloud service names (RDS, Lambda), framework-specific terms, container/orchestration specifics, CI/CD tool names.

Authentication/Authorization Architecture (If Required)

For Go services: reference golang/security.md → Access Manager Integration in TRD so engineers know implementation patterns.

License Manager Architecture (If Required)

For Go services: reference golang/security.md → License Manager Integration.

Frontend-Backend Integration (If Fullstack)

Read api_pattern from research.md frontmatter (bff or none).

If api_pattern: none: Document "Static Frontend — no API layer needed."

If api_pattern: bff: TRD MUST include ## Integration Patterns section:

• Pattern: BFF (Backend-for-Frontend)
• Frontend calls BFF API routes (Next.js API Routes recommended)
• BFF aggregates data from multiple backend services
• Sensitive API keys stored server-side
• Data Flow: Frontend → BFF API Route → Backend Service(s) → Database(s)

BFF Contracts section (MANDATORY when api_pattern: bff):

• BFF Route + Frontend Consumer + Request/Response contracts (flat, no data envelope)
• Error contracts per BFF route
• Backend API mapping (BFF route → backend APIs called → aggregation logic)
• Task ownership: Frontend Engineer owns BFF (consumer proximity, type safety chain)

HARD RULE: Client-side code MUST NEVER call backend APIs directly. api_pattern: direct does not exist for dynamic data.

Design System Configuration (UI Features)

Auto-detect from package.json: @lerianstudio/sindarian-ui, @radix-ui/*, @shadcn/ui, @chakra-ui/*, @mui/material, etc.

TRD must include ## Design System Configuration section:

• UI library + version
• CSS framework + config file
• Theme variables (color scale, spacing, component-specific)
• Component availability matrix (table: Component Needed / Available / Notes)
• Variant mapping (Design Intent → Correct Variant → Wrong variant)
• Required CSS imports in globals.css

Pagination Strategy (Required for List Endpoints)

Document in TRD: API Patterns → Pagination → Strategy + Rationale

ADR Template

**ADR-00X: [Pattern Name]**
- **Context**: [Problem needing solution]
- **Options**: [List with trade-offs - no products]
- **Decision**: [Selected pattern]
- **Rationale**: [Why this pattern]
- **Consequences**: [Impact of decision]

Gate Validation Checklist (Gate 3 Large / Gate 2 Small)

Gate Result: ✅ PASS → API Design / Gate 4 (Large) or plan / Gate 3 (Small) | ⚠️ CONDITIONAL (remove product names) | ❌ FAIL (too coupled or failure modes missing)

Document Placement