readme-writing
Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Write or restructure a README that gets a reader from landing to first success in minutes: a one-line purpose, a working quick start verified against the actual code, then usage, configuration, and contribution pointers in the order a new user needs them, with nothing the code contradicts. Reads the repository first and never documents behaviour it has not confirmed. Use when a project has no README, when the README has drifted from the code, or before publishing a package or repository.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Run the quick start you intend to document.
- Distinctive: line 56
No aspirational features: If it is planned, it goes in a roadmap section or an issue, not in Usage.
- Very specific: line 61
Run humanize on the prose before returning.
- Distinctive: line 66
Check each claim against the code.
- Very specific: line 69
Keep the URL anchors people may have linked (#install, #usage) even when renaming headings, via a short redirect line if needed.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
A README is the front door. Its first screen must answer three questions: what is this, is it for me, how do I try it. Everything after that is in order of how soon a new user needs it. The README is verified against the code, not written from memory of the code.
Read before writing
- The manifest (
package.json,pyproject.toml,Cargo.toml,go.mod): name, version, entry points, scripts, dependencies, engines. - The entry point and the public surface: CLI flags (
--helpoutput if it runs), exported functions, routes, config schema. - Existing docs,
CONTRIBUTING,LICENSE, CI config, examples directory, tests (they show real usage). - Run the quick start you intend to document. If it does not work, the README says what actually works.
Structure
# name
One sentence: what it does and for whom. (Badges on the next line, at most four: CI, version, license, one more.)
Two or three sentences: the problem it solves and the one thing that distinguishes it. Optional: a screenshot or a 10-line example that shows the payoff.
## Quick start
Prerequisites in one line (runtime version, accounts, keys).
The minimal commands, copy-pasteable, that produce a visible result. Nothing optional here.
What the user should see when it worked.
## Usage
The three to five most common tasks, each: one sentence, one code block, one sentence on the result. Link to full reference docs for the rest.
## Configuration
Table: option, env var or flag, default, what it does. Only options a user will actually set.
## How it works (optional)
Three to six sentences or a diagram, for the reader deciding whether to trust or extend it.
## Development
Clone, install, test, lint, in four commands. Link to CONTRIBUTING for the rest.
## LicenseOmit a section rather than fill it with filler. A library README leads with the API example; a CLI README leads with the command; a service README leads with the deploy or run command.
Rules
- Verify every command by running it (or by reading the script it invokes when running is not possible) and say the runtime version it was verified with.
- Match the manifest: the install command uses the real package name and manager; scripts named in the README exist in the manifest.
- No aspirational features. If it is planned, it goes in a roadmap section or an issue, not in Usage.
- Sentence case headings, short paragraphs, no em dashes, no "simply", no "just".
- Keep the top stable: the first screen changes rarely; volatile detail (options, versions) lives lower or in generated sections between markers so a script can update it.
- Badges are signals, not decoration: a red CI badge on the README is honest; ten badges are noise.
- Link, do not duplicate: the changelog, the API reference, and the contribution guide each live in one place.
- Run
humanizeon the prose before returning.
Restructuring an existing README
- Inventory: list every section and what question it answers.
- Check each claim against the code; mark stale ones.
- Reorder by the new user's timeline; move contributor material below user material.
- Cut what the code no longer does; move history to the changelog.
- Keep the URL anchors people may have linked (
#install,#usage) even when renaming headings, via a short redirect line if needed.
Report what was removed and why, separately from the new text.
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- codetesla51/skills★ 32same name
- Charlyhno-eng/jev-codex-pilot★ 7same name
- metraton/gaia★ 4same name
- indubitably-ai/indubitably-skills★ 1same name
- Jannchie/skills★ 1same name
- yiweiwan/skills★ 1same name
- zhoux77899/flawless★ 1same name
- luxiangze/skills★ 0same name
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 repository89 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- site/llms-full.txtllms.txt
- site/llms.txtllms.txt
- improveSkill
- academic-writingSkill
- benchmark-reportingSkill
- bibtex-managerSkill
- citation-graphSkill
- citation-verifierSkill
- design-science-methodologySkill
- docx-thesisSkill
- experiment-reproducibilitySkill
- latex-toolkitSkill
- literature-searchSkill
- lit-review-synthesisSkill
- paper-readerSkill
- proofread-academicSkill
- research-figuresSkill
- research-methodologySkill
- research-questionSkill
- statistics-advisorSkill
- supervisor-updateSkill
- systematic-reviewSkill
- thesis-proposalSkill
- coolify-image-appSkill
- coolify-vps-baselineSkill
- deploy-verificationSkill
- express-prisma-coolify-imageSkill
- ghcr-coolify-pipelineSkill
- live-domain-cutoverSkill
- nextjs-coolify-imageSkill
- proxy-client-addressSkill
- vps-ops-toolkitSkill
- adr-writingSkill
- openapi-specSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- adversarial-reviewerSkill
- api-design-reviewSkill
- code-review-responseSkill
- create-agentSkill
- create-commandSkill
- create-hookSkill
- create-skillSkill
- db-migration-safetySkill
- dependency-upgradeSkill
- dockerfile-best-practicesSkill
- error-handling-patternsSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- explain-codebaseSkill
- fix-ciSkill
- github-actions-pipelineSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- incident-postmortemSkill
- logging-and-observabilitySkill
- parallel-agentsSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- refactoring-recipesSkill
- solid-principlesSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

