doc-writing
Skill44 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Write documents using the HWPR/AWOR framework -- separating human value judgments from AI-expanded content so critical information is not buried. Triggers when the user requests writing, rewriting, or reviewing document quality.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- cormacc/dotagentstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- caojunjie0706-eng/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 7, 2026
- ly0o0o/codex-engineering-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 7, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- ly0o0o/codex-engineering-skills★ 2same name
- cormacc/dotagents★ 1same name
- caojunjie0706-eng/agent-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 repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- architectSkill
- clean-cacheSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-submitSkill
- dev-workflowSkill
- embed-ci-setupSkill
- gitlab-ciSkill
- gitlab-mrSkill
- grafanaSkill
- k8s-opsSkill
- local-security-checkSkill
- mock-engineSkill
- multi-worktree-devSkill
- prometheusSkill
- security-compliance-reviewSkill
- sentry-onboardingSkill
- sentrySkill
- sre-agentSkill
- story-craftsmanSkill
- terraform-auditSkill
- testing-strategySkill
- trufflehog-cliSkill
- uat-story-writerSkill
- voc-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
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 42
Ask the user questions to extract core value judgments:
- Distinctive: line 70
Read the full text and mark sentences/paragraphs that appear to contain human value judgments (identification criteria: contains subjective …
- Distinctive: line 98
Check and report the following issues:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Doc Writing (HWPR/AWOR)
In the AI era, human value judgments get buried in AI-expanded long documents. This skill uses HWPR/AWOR markers so readers (human or AI) can quickly locate what the human actually thought.
For the detailed template, see examples/TEMPLATE-HWPR.md.
Core Concepts
- [HWPR] (Human Wrote, Please Read): Unknown context + value judgments written by a human. Must be short (3-5 sentences).
- [AWOR] (AI Wrote, Optional Read): Detailed content expanded by AI. Can be deleted, modified, or replaced.
Rules
- Never modify [HWPR] content — AI may only read HWPR paragraphs; it must not rewrite, rephrase, merge, or "polish" them
- HWPR must be short — Each HWPR paragraph must not exceed 3-5 sentences; write only: unknown context + value judgments
- Value judgments with humility — Use phrasing like "I believe" / "current judgment" / "possibly" in HWPR, acknowledging potential error
- [AWOR] can be freely modified — AI-expanded content may be replaced, deleted, or rewritten at any time
- Consistent marker format — Use bold markers
**[HWPR]**and**[AWOR]**as headers, followed by paragraph titles - HWPR uses blockquote — HWPR body text uses
>block quotes for visual distinction
Execution Flow
Mode A: Write a New Document
Trigger Conditions
User requests "help me write a document," "write a proposal," "draft a PRD," etc.
Step 1: Guide HWPR Extraction
Ask the user questions to extract core value judgments:
To write an effective document, I need you to provide the following HWPR content (keep it brief, 1-3 sentences per item):
1. **Background**: Why are we doing this? What is the core problem?
2. **Judgment**: What do you think we should do? Why this direction?
3. **Trade-offs**: What was deliberately given up? What are the known risks?Step 2: Confirm HWPR
Organize the user's answers into HWPR paragraphs and display them for user confirmation. Once confirmed, HWPR is never modified afterwards.
Step 3: Generate Complete Document
Following the TEMPLATE-HWPR.md structure, expand corresponding AWOR paragraphs after each HWPR paragraph.
Mode B: Rewrite an Existing Document
Trigger Conditions
User provides an existing document and requests "restructure using HWPR/AWOR," "split and label," etc.
Step 1: Identify Potential HWPR
Read the full text and mark sentences/paragraphs that appear to contain human value judgments (identification criteria: contains subjective decisions, trade-offs, "we chose" / "gave up" language, etc.).
Step 2: Confirm with User
List the identified results and ask the user to confirm each one:
I identified the following as potentially your value judgments (HWPR) in the document. Please confirm:
1. yes/no "We chose option B because..." (paragraph X)
2. yes/no "Abandoned real-time push, switched to polling..." (paragraph Y)
3. yes/no ...Step 3: Split, Label + Expand
Extract confirmed HWPR into **[HWPR]** paragraphs, mark remaining content as **[AWOR]**, and expand where necessary.
Mode C: Review a Document
Trigger Conditions
User requests "review the document," "check HWPR formatting," etc.
Review Checklist
Check and report the following issues:
| Check Item | Issue Description |
| Missing markers | Paragraph has no [HWPR] or [AWOR] marker |
| HWPR too long | HWPR paragraph exceeds 5 sentences |
| HWPR contains AI style | HWPR has obvious AI-expansion artifacts (boilerplate, "in summary," etc.) |
| AWOR contains value judgments | AWOR contains "we decided" / "gave up" etc. that should be HWPR content |
| Incorrect marker format | Not using the standard **[HWPR]** / **[AWOR]** format |
Output format: List each issue + suggested fix.
Examples
Bad — HWPR too long, mixed with AI style
**[HWPR]** Background and Judgment
> After in-depth analysis of user behavior data and multi-dimensional competitive market research,
> our team discovered that the core problem lies in the new user onboarding experience not being smooth enough,
> which has led to a first-day retention rate of only 35%, significantly below the industry average of 50%.
> Based on the above analysis, we believe we should start by simplifying the onboarding flow,
> improving user experience through reducing step count and optimizing interaction design... (200 words)Problem: HWPR is too long; contains AI boilerplate ("after in-depth analysis," "multi-dimensional," "significantly below").
Good — HWPR is concise, focused on judgments
**[HWPR]** Background
> New user first-day retention is 35%. I believe the main cause is onboarding being too complex (5 steps).
> Plan to simplify to 2 steps first, targeting 45% retention.
**[AWOR]** Detailed Analysis
User growth data over the past three quarters: Q1 retention 38%, Q2 35%, Q3 33%, showing a continuous decline.
Competitor comparison: Product A's onboarding has only 2 steps with 52% first-day retention...Exemptions
| Scenario | Condition |
| Pure record documents | Meeting minutes and other pure records without value judgments — HWPR may be omitted |
| Existing mature templates | Weekly reports and other documents with fixed formats — only add HWPR to "judgment/decision" sections |
References
- HWPR/AWOR Document Template
- Inspiration: Pu Li's HWPR/AWOR documentation methodology
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.

