agentleFS
ImmortalqxImmortalqx/my_codex_skills/doc-coauthoring/SKILL.md

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

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.
  • hfzarslanSkill

    context7-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

  • AnthropicSkill

    academy-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

  • AbdullahMalik17Skill

    configuring-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

  • AbdullahMalik17Skill

    deploying-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-DawnSkill

    results-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

  • AnthropicSkill

    web-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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when the user is writing a substantial document and the bottleneck is not grammar, but structure, missing context, or …

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Create a scaffold in a local file or the user-requested output format.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Run a cold-reader test and fix gaps before declaring the document done.

    line 15
  4. Distinctive:

    If the user mentions existing notes, tickets, threads, design docs, or files:

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    Read the local files directly when they are available in the workspace.

    line 41
  6. Distinctive:

    Use MCP or other connected tools only when they are actually available in the current environment.

    line 42
  7. Distinctive:

    If a referenced source is not accessible, ask the user to paste the relevant parts instead of pretending the source can be read.

    line 43
  8. Distinctive:

    After the initial dump, ask focused numbered questions about the gaps that would block drafting.

    line 47
  9. Distinctive:

    If the user already has a template, follow it.

    line 64
  10. Distinctive:

    Create a local file with section headings and placeholder text.

    line 74
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not overdesign the scaffold.

    line 84
  12. Distinctive:

    Ask 3 to 7 questions specific to that section.

    line 92
  13. Distinctive:

    Ask the user what to keep, drop, combine, or reorder.

    line 104
  14. Distinctive:

    After a section stabilizes, ask:

    line 116
  15. Distinctive:

    When most sections are drafted, reread the full document and check:

    line 124
  16. Distinctive:

    Check whether a fresh reader can answer the obvious questions without relying on hidden context from the drafting conversation.

    line 139
  17. Distinctive:

    If a fresh subagent, fresh thread, or equivalent independent reader is available, use it with only the document and the reader questions.

    line 153
  18. Distinctive:

    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 …

    line 155
  19. Distinctive:

    If the reader test reveals confusion, go back to the exact section that caused it and fix the missing context, ambiguity, or hidden …

    line 159
  20. Distinctive:

    Before declaring the document complete:

    line 163
  21. Distinctive:

    Ask the user to verify facts, links, metrics, and names.

    line 166
  22. Distinctive:

    Check that every section still earns its place.

    line 167
  23. Distinctive:

    Prefer local files over large chat-only drafts.

    line 172
  24. Distinctive:

    Do not fabricate access to external systems or documents.

    line 173
  25. Distinctive:

    Do not optimize for elegance before the structure is correct.

    line 174
  26. Distinctive:

    If the user wants to abandon the workflow and draft freeform, switch cleanly without argument.

    line 175

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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:

  1. Gather context until the problem, audience, and constraints are concrete.
  2. Create a scaffold in a local file or the user-requested output format.
  3. Draft the document section by section.
  4. 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:

  1. Document type.
  2. Primary audience.
  3. Decision or action the document should drive.
  4. Required template or section order.
  5. 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:

  1. Confirm the document achieves the intended reader outcome.
  2. Ask the user to verify facts, links, metrics, and names.
  3. 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.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.