doc-coauthoring
Skill54 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Structured co-authoring workflow for specifications, proposals, decision docs, PRDs, RFCs, and other substantial written artifacts. Use when Codex should help a user gather context, shape document structure, draft section by section, and test whether the document works for a cold reader before handoff.
179 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- TehseenTech/manus-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- rvdbreemen/OTGW-firmwaretheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- BrightGold70/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- fumoctl/nix-agent-officetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ppswdev/pp_skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- shkodnik1917/claude-brainlabtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use context7-efficient, academy-guide 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.
hfzarslanSkillcontext7-efficient
Token-efficient library documentation fetcher using Context7 MCP with 86.8% token savings through intelligent shell pipeline filtering. Fetches code examples, API references, and best practices for JavaScript, Python, Go, Rust, and other libraries. Use when users ask about library documentation, need code examples, want API usage patterns, are learning a new framework, need syntax reference, or troubleshooting with library-specific information. Triggers include questions like "Show me React hooks", "How do I use Prisma", "What's the Next.js routing syntax", or any request for library/framework documentation.
Also in 5 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillacademy-guide
Stop and check this skill before finishing any reply to a question about how to use Claude or a Claude product — it recommends matching courses, tutorials, and use cases from Claude Academy (academy.claude.com), Anthropic's learning hub. Trigger on: "how do I", "how can I", "getting started with", "what can Claude do", "teach me", "learn to use"; questions about artifacts, projects, skills, plugins, connectors, MCP; requests about rolling Claude out to a team, class, or organization; and any ask for training materials, onboarding content, or learning resources. Use it when the user is learning how to use a feature or product — not when they are mid-task and just want the task done. This skill composes with other skills: after consulting product documentation to answer how a Claude feature works, also check here for a matching course or tutorial — a docs-grounded answer and an Academy recommendation belong together. Only recommend on a strong match; never invent Academy content.
Also in 6 projects that use this
AbdullahMalik17Skillconfiguring-dapr-pubsub
Configures Dapr pub/sub components for event-driven microservices with Kafka or Redis. Use when wiring agent-to-agent communication, setting up event subscriptions, or integrating Dapr sidecars. Covers component configuration, subscription patterns, publishing events, and Kubernetes deployment. NOT when using direct Kafka clients or non-Dapr messaging patterns.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AbdullahMalik17Skilldeploying-cloud-k8s
Deploys applications to cloud Kubernetes (AKS/GKE/DOKS) with CI/CD pipelines. Use when deploying to production, setting up GitHub Actions, troubleshooting deployments. Covers build-time vs runtime vars, architecture matching, and battle-tested debugging.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Galaxy-DawnSkillresults-report
This skill should be used when the user asks to "write an experiment report", "summarize experimental results", "do experiment retrospection", "write a results report", "写实验总结报告", "写实验复盘", or mentions turning completed experiment artifacts into a structured, decision-oriented research report. It assumes strict analysis should come from `results-analysis` first.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillweb-artifacts-builder
Suite of tools for creating elaborate, multi-component claude.ai HTML artifacts using modern frontend web technologies (React, Tailwind CSS, shadcn/ui). Use for complex artifacts requiring state management, routing, or shadcn/ui components - not for simple single-file HTML/JSX artifacts.
Also in 72 projects that use this
- +5 more from AbdullahMalik17
Other versions179 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 179
- anthropics/skills★ 189ksame name
- Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar★ 5.9ksame name
- moonrepo/moon★ 4.2ksame name
- ChenglinPoly/infiAgent★ 1.2ksame name
- polyuiislab/infiAgent★ 1.2ksame name
- getsentry/skills★ 1.1ksame name
- Ohh-889/skyroc-admin★ 795same name
- JetBrains/skills★ 386same name
- zephyrwang6/myskill★ 339same name
- xuzeyu91/WebCode★ 278same name
169 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 repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- alphaxivSkill
- arxivSkill
- docxSkill
- drawio-diagramSkill
- figure-descriptionSkill
- formula-derivationSkill
- grant-proposalSkill
- mmx-cliSkill
- mock-reviewSkill
- novelty-checkSkill
- paper-readingSkill
- pdfSkill
- phd-benchmark-paper-templateSkill
- phd-figure-designerSkill
- phd-idea-evaluatorSkill
- phd-intro-drafterSkill
- phd-pre-submission-reviewerSkill
- phd-tech-paper-templateSkill
- phd-vibe-research-workflowSkill
- pptxSkill
- proof-writerSkill
- research-litSkill
- research-survey-loopSkill
- research-wikiSkill
- theme-factorySkill
- update-source-mapSkill
- xlsxSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
26 rules. 0 are common, 26 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 170 edited versions we read keep these.
26
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 10
Use this skill when the user is writing a substantial document and the bottleneck is not grammar, but structure, missing context, or …
- Distinctive: line 13
Create a scaffold in a local file or the user-requested output format.
- Distinctive: line 15
Run a cold-reader test and fix gaps before declaring the document done.
- Distinctive: line 39
If the user mentions existing notes, tickets, threads, design docs, or files:
- Distinctive: line 41
Read the local files directly when they are available in the workspace.
- Distinctive: line 42
Use MCP or other connected tools only when they are actually available in the current environment.
- Distinctive: line 43
If a referenced source is not accessible, ask the user to paste the relevant parts instead of pretending the source can be read.
- Distinctive: line 47
After the initial dump, ask focused numbered questions about the gaps that would block drafting.
- Distinctive: line 64
If the user already has a template, follow it.
- Distinctive: line 74
Create a local file with section headings and placeholder text.
- Distinctive: line 84
Do not overdesign the scaffold.
- Distinctive: line 92
Ask 3 to 7 questions specific to that section.
- Distinctive: line 104
Ask the user what to keep, drop, combine, or reorder.
- Distinctive: line 116
After a section stabilizes, ask:
- Distinctive: line 124
When most sections are drafted, reread the full document and check:
- Distinctive: line 139
Check whether a fresh reader can answer the obvious questions without relying on hidden context from the drafting conversation.
- Distinctive: line 153
If a fresh subagent, fresh thread, or equivalent independent reader is available, use it with only the document and the reader questions.
- Distinctive: line 155
If no such isolation mechanism is available, ask the user to test the document manually in a fresh chat or with a real colleague and report …
- Distinctive: line 159
If the reader test reveals confusion, go back to the exact section that caused it and fix the missing context, ambiguity, or hidden …
- Distinctive: line 163
Before declaring the document complete:
- Distinctive: line 166
Ask the user to verify facts, links, metrics, and names.
- Distinctive: line 167
Check that every section still earns its place.
- Distinctive: line 172
Prefer local files over large chat-only drafts.
- Distinctive: line 173
Do not fabricate access to external systems or documents.
- Distinctive: line 174
Do not optimize for elegance before the structure is correct.
- Distinctive: line 175
If the user wants to abandon the workflow and draft freeform, switch cleanly without argument.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 170 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
Doc Co-Authoring
Overview
Use this skill when the user is writing a substantial document and the bottleneck is not grammar, but structure, missing context, or unclear reader expectations. The workflow is:
- Gather context until the problem, audience, and constraints are concrete.
- Create a scaffold in a local file or the user-requested output format.
- Draft the document section by section.
- Run a cold-reader test and fix gaps before declaring the document done.
This skill is format-agnostic. Use plain Markdown by default. If the requested deliverable is specifically a Word document, slide deck, or spreadsheet-backed document, hand off the file-format work to docx, pptx, or xlsx after the structure is stable.
Stage 1: Context Gathering
Goal
Build enough shared context that later drafting steps can focus on tradeoffs and clarity instead of rediscovering basics.
Start with meta-context
Ask for:
- Document type.
- Primary audience.
- Decision or action the document should drive.
- Required template or section order.
- Hard constraints such as deadline, page budget, compatibility requirements, or political constraints.
Accept shorthand answers. If the user already pasted a draft, infer what you can before asking follow-up questions.
Pull in source material
If the user mentions existing notes, tickets, threads, design docs, or files:
- Read the local files directly when they are available in the workspace.
- Use MCP or other connected tools only when they are actually available in the current environment.
- If a referenced source is not accessible, ask the user to paste the relevant parts instead of pretending the source can be read.
Ask clarifying questions
After the initial dump, ask focused numbered questions about the gaps that would block drafting. Aim for 5 to 10 high-value questions, not a questionnaire for its own sake.
Good examples:
- What is the concrete failure mode that triggered this document?
- Which alternatives were considered and rejected?
- What does the audience already know, and what must be explained from scratch?
- What decision should a reader be able to make immediately after reading?
Exit condition
Move on when you can explain, in one short paragraph, what the document is for, who it is for, and what the main recommendation or deliverable is.
Stage 2: Structure and Scaffolding
Decide the section set
If the user already has a template, follow it. Otherwise propose a minimal structure that matches the document type.
Examples:
- Decision doc: context, problem, options, recommendation, risks, rollout.
- Technical spec: goal, requirements, design, edge cases, rollout, open questions.
- Proposal: motivation, objectives, plan, budget or resources, risks, ask.
Create the scaffold
Create a local file with section headings and placeholder text. Prefer Markdown unless the user explicitly asked for another format.
Placeholder text should be short and functional, for example:
## Recommendation
[To be drafted]Do not overdesign the scaffold. Its job is to make iteration easy.
Stage 3: Section-by-Section Drafting
For each section, run the same loop.
Step 1: Clarify the section
Ask 3 to 7 questions specific to that section. Keep them concrete and answerable.
Step 2: Brainstorm candidate points
List 5 to 15 candidate points depending on section complexity. Include:
- facts already provided by the user,
- implications they may have missed,
- tradeoffs or objections the reader is likely to raise.
Step 3: Curate
Ask the user what to keep, drop, combine, or reorder. If the user gives freeform feedback, translate it into concrete edits.
Step 4: Draft
Replace the placeholder with real prose. Draft for the target audience, not for the agent. Keep claims tied to the actual context gathered in Stage 1.
Step 5: Refine
Iterate surgically. Prefer editing the existing file over reprinting the whole document in chat. Track the user's preferences in tone, level of detail, and section length, then apply them to later sections.
Quality checks during drafting
After a section stabilizes, ask:
- Can anything be deleted without losing meaning?
- Is any paragraph doing more than one job?
- Does this section assume context that the target reader will not have?
Stage 4: Whole-Document Pass
When most sections are drafted, reread the full document and check:
- flow across sections,
- duplicated content,
- contradictions,
- generic filler,
- missing transitions,
- missing definitions for reader-critical terms.
Surface issues as findings, then edit the file directly.
Stage 5: Cold-Reader Test
Goal
Check whether a fresh reader can answer the obvious questions without relying on hidden context from the drafting conversation.
Produce reader questions
Generate 5 to 10 realistic reader questions such as:
- What problem is this document solving?
- What decision is being requested?
- What changed from the status quo?
- What are the main risks?
- What follow-up action is required from me?
Testing options
If a fresh subagent, fresh thread, or equivalent independent reader is available, use it with only the document and the reader questions. Do not leak your diagnosis or intended fixes into that test.
If no such isolation mechanism is available, ask the user to test the document manually in a fresh chat or with a real colleague and report back what was unclear.
Fix loop
If the reader test reveals confusion, go back to the exact section that caused it and fix the missing context, ambiguity, or hidden assumption. Repeat until the main reader questions can be answered correctly from the document alone.
Final Review
Before declaring the document complete:
- Confirm the document achieves the intended reader outcome.
- Ask the user to verify facts, links, metrics, and names.
- Check that every section still earns its place.
Working Rules
- Be direct and procedural.
- Prefer local files over large chat-only drafts.
- Do not fabricate access to external systems or documents.
- Do not optimize for elegance before the structure is correct.
- If the user wants to abandon the workflow and draft freeform, switch cleanly without argument.
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.

