technical-documentation
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
For the Technical Writer (10). Document reality (not the ideal) for two audiences (PO and AI); if code and docs differ, code wins; update before creating; less doc than product. Use it when closing stages.
33 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- taixuann/development-spacetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- hamzzaqureshi/gravidextheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Djarvur/go-ultimatetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- JPeetz/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 28, 2026
- shanselman/openclaw-windows-hubtheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- OpenClawAndroid/openclaw-android-assistanttheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use clawhub-ban-appeals, clawhub-clawscan and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
openclawSkillclawhub-ban-appeals
Review ClawHub account-ban appeals, distinguish bans from moderation holds or blocked releases, and prepare an evidence-backed moderation decision. Route validated scanner inaccuracies to clawhub-clawscan.
Also in 3 projects that use this
openclawSkillclawhub-clawscan
Investigate ClawScan health alerts, diagnose scanner or ClawHub integration failures, prepare operational repairs, and route validated verdict inaccuracies upstream. Account ban appeals use clawhub-ban-appeals.
Also in 3 projects that use this
FabienGreardSkillconvex-acquire-domain
Find and buy a domain for the current Convex app through Convex, then bind it (labs; spend action).
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +9 more from openclaw
Other versions33 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 33
- moltbot/clawdbot★ 394ksame name
- steipete/warelay★ 394ksame name
- steipete/clawdis★ 394ksame name
- moltbot/moltbot★ 394ksame name
- clawdbot/clawdbot★ 394ksame name
- openclaw/openclaw★ 394ksame name
- molt-bot/clawdbot★ 391ksame name
- openclaw/clawhub★ 9.6ksame name
- clawdbot/clawdhub★ 9.5ksame name
- moltbot/molthub★ 9.5ksame name
23 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- docs/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adopt-groundSkill
- agent-authoringSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- asset-sourcingSkill
- brand-evaluation-rubricSkill
- criticSkill
- data-integritySkill
- diagrams-gateSkill
- drift-protocolSkill
- env-reproducibleSkill
- orchestrator-bridgeSkill
- project-cleanupSkill
- qa-eyesSkill
- qa-visual-criteriaSkill
- research-methodologySkill
- security-auditSkill
- setupSkill
- smoke-testSkill
- visualizerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 31 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
If the code says one thing and the docs say another, the code wins.
- Distinctive: line 13
No aspirational documentation — only what exists today.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 31 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
SKILL: technical-documentation
For: Agent 10 — TECHNICAL WRITER
Version: 1.0.0
Core principle
Documentation documents reality — not the ideal. If the code says one thing and the docs say another, the code wins. No aspirational documentation — only what exists today.
Audiences
Product Owner: README.md (start the project), operational runbooks, CHANGELOG.md. Criteria: clear language, no jargon, step by step, assuming no technical knowledge.
Executing AI: AGENTS.md (context + rules + constraints), CLAUDE.md/CODEX.md, API contracts, docstrings in critical modules. Criteria: explicit about what NOT to do, exact paths, no ambiguity.
Both: technical-operational runbooks, architecture decisions. Separate sections by audience — humans first, AI second.
Process
STEP 1 — Verify the existing: what's outdated, what's missing, what's extra. STEP 2 — Update before creating. Mark technical debt if it can't be updated. STEP 3 — Write only what doesn't exist and is necessary. Rule: 3 code files don't need 10 docs. STEP 4 — Declare technical debt explicitly if the code is badly built.
Minimal structure per document
README.md: What it is → Requirements → How to start → How it's used → Project structure. AGENTS.md: Identity → Immovable rules → Architecture → Current state → Workflow. API contracts: method/route, description, parameters, response, errors, constraints. Runbooks: title, when to use it, prerequisites, exact steps, what to do if it fails.
Signs of outdated documentation
⚠ References files that don't exist ⚠ Paths don't match the real structure ⚠ Commands that don't work when run ⚠ AGENTS.md rules that don't match real behavior
Good vs bad documentation
Good: a new person starts without asking, an AI modifies without breaking anything critical, paths and rules match reality. Bad: you have to read the code to understand the doc, instructions that don't work on every machine, doc longer than the code it documents.
Mistakes to avoid
× Documenting the ideal instead of reality × Leaving it outdated without marking it × Duplicating information across documents × Using jargon in PO documents × Omitting constraints in AGENTS.md × Producing more documentation than is consumed
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

