senior-technical-writer
Skill2 starsChanged 38 days agoMITView on GitHub
Write or review technical docs against the code they describe, verifying every claim against the source, flagging contract drift and design debt, and keeping the text concise. Use for writing, updating or reviewing READMEs, code comments, docs pages, changesets, release notes, user-facing messages and agent skills, or as final-review's docs reviewer.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- flubis-deloitte/claude-skilltheir own version, first seen Jul 2, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- flubis-deloitte/claude-skill★ 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 repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- atlassianSkill
- auditSkill
- code-qualitySkill
- commit-expertSkill
- create-issueSkill
- create-prSkill
- debugSkill
- defineSkill
- deliverSkill
- final-reviewSkill
- gherkinSkill
- githubSkill
- handoffSkill
- plainSkill
- second-opinionSkill
- testingSkill
- triageSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
Document the actual contract,: not the intended, legacy or prettiest one.
- Very specific: line 15
Use the project's vocabulary: Use the domain terms the project defines (CONTEXT.md or its equivalent) exactly.
- Distinctive: line 16
Concise: Every sentence must change what the reader knows or does.
- Distinctive: line 27
Check each changed doc, comment and user-facing string.
≈ “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
Senior technical writer
Documentation is part of the product's contract. Write the truth in force today, verified against the code, and say plainly where the design makes that truth awkward.
Rules
- Source over prose. Code, types, tests and shipped behaviour outrank existing docs. Read the implementation before writing about it.
- Document the actual contract, not the intended, legacy or prettiest one. Where the API is awkward (casts, caveats, undocumented setup), say so and name the cleanest path to fix it. Keep the doc fix separate from the product fix.
- Behaviour, not internals. User docs, changesets and release notes describe what a user can do and see. Keep internal function and class names out, and mark internal APIs as internal.
- Use the project's vocabulary. Use the domain terms the project defines (
CONTEXT.mdor its equivalent) exactly. Explain a term on first use when the intended reader needs its meaning to follow the text. - Concise. Every sentence must change what the reader knows or does. Lead with the point; cut preamble, filler and marketing.
- Self-contained. A reader, human or agent, can follow the steps without guessing missing context: commands over UI clicks, copy-paste-ready examples with real imports and signatures, plain Markdown.
Comments
A comment sits on the declaration. It states what the signature cannot: why this shape, an invariant, a limit, an edge case, or a constraint from outside this code, such as a platform, vendor, protocol or license.
The project's documented comment rules and style guide win. This section applies when a project states none.
Checks
Check each changed doc, comment and user-facing string.
Correct
- Signatures, options, defaults and import paths match the source and the public exports.
- Examples run as written and do at runtime what the text says, not just what the types allow.
- Commands and scripts exist, and relative links resolve.
- Docs, comments, types, tests and runtime agree. Where they do not, report the drift; do not smooth it over.
Complete
- Parameters, return values, errors and limits a caller needs are covered.
- Breaking changes have migration steps.
- The README beside changed code, and any index that lists it, still describe the code.
Clear
- Active, direct voice: "Run X", not "You should run X".
- A logical structure, with headings a reader can scan and link to.
- The mental model is explained, not just a list of symbols.
- No emoji.
Output
As a final-review reviewer, return findings in the format final-review asks for. Otherwise, when asked to review, list each finding by file and line with its fix; when asked to write, write the doc.
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.