documentation-lifecycle
Skill4 starsChanged 8 months agoUnlicenseView on GitHub
Use when documentation must stay truthful as software changes — writing or revising a spec, ADR, runbook, or API/config reference, splitting user-facing docs by purpose, or reconciling documentation drift. Triggers on: "write a spec", "ADR", "runbook", "which docs must change", "documentation drift", "missing acceptance criteria", "spec interview", "update the API reference".
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈14
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
Use this skill to keep repository documentation truthful as software changes.
- Distinctive: line 35
Read only the smallest reference file that matches:
- Distinctive: line 43
Update existing authoritative docs before creating new ones unless the current structure is obviously missing a required document type.
- Distinctive: line 44
If code, tests, and docs disagree, stop and surface the discrepancy instead of picking the text you like best.
- Distinctive: line 51
Spec before implementation for non-trivial behavior changes: If the task changes user-visible or operator-visible behavior, draft or update …
- Distinctive: line 52
Interview before drafting when the request is vague: Do not turn ambiguity into fake confidence.
- Distinctive: line 53
Use adaptive questioning, not bureaucratic questionnaires: Start with 3-5 high-leverage questions, then branch only where uncertainty …
- Distinctive: line 58
README is a map, not the whole territory: Keep it as orientation and links unless it is intentionally the canonical doc for that narrow …
- Distinctive: line 60
Documentation drift is a bug: If you cannot reconcile a known stale doc immediately, flag it visibly rather than leaving a polished lie.
- Very specific: line 78
Write engineering docs first: when behavior or implementation contracts change.
- Distinctive: line 83
Write user-facing docs second: when the change affects discoverability, onboarding, or public workflows.
- Distinctive: line 89
When the request is muddy, restate the user's goal in 1-2 sentences to confirm you have it right.
- Distinctive: line 91
Ask probing questions where definitions are unclear, evidence is shaky, stakeholders are hidden, or failure consequences are unstated.
- Distinctive: line 92
When the desired outcome collides with a real counter-pressure — speed vs safety, flexibility vs specificity, internal simplicity vs public …
- Distinctive: line 94
If there is no real conflict, do not manufacture one.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Documentation Lifecycle
Use this skill to keep repository documentation truthful as software changes. It routes work across two distinct families:
- engineering documentation — specs, ADRs, exact reference docs, runbooks, and maintenance surfaces
- user-facing documentation — tutorials, how-to guides, reference, and explanation
This skill exists to stop two failure modes:
- implementation ships while the canonical docs lie
- teams dump every doc need into a README and call it “done”
Quick Start
Hard rule: every document this skill calls for must be written to disk. Use the write tool for new files and the edit tool for updates. Outputting document content in the chat instead of writing a file is a failure.
- Classify the task:
- vague or disputed change request
- planned feature or behavior change
- architecture-significant decision
- exact interface or configuration update
- operational / deployment / recovery change
- user-facing docs request
- documentation drift audit
- Decide whether the primary surface is engineering documentation, user-facing documentation, or both.
- Read only the smallest reference file that matches:
- vague scope or missing acceptance criteria ->
references/specification-interview.md - canonical behavior intent ->
references/feature-spec.md - hard-to-reverse architecture choice ->
references/adr.md - exact interfaces and behavior facts ->
references/reference-docs.md - operations, deployment, migration, rollback, troubleshooting ->
references/runbook.md - tutorials / how-to / reference / explanation ->
references/user-facing-docs.md - mixed or unclear work ->
references/REFERENCE.md
- vague scope or missing acceptance criteria ->
- Update existing authoritative docs before creating new ones unless the current structure is obviously missing a required document type.
- If code, tests, and docs disagree, stop and surface the discrepancy instead of picking the text you like best.
Critical Rules
- Documents are files, not chat messages. When this skill determines that a document must be created or updated, you MUST write it to disk with the
writetool (oreditfor updates). Never dump the full document content into the chat as a substitute for writing the file. Describing what you would write is not writing it. If you identify that a feature spec, ADR, runbook, reference doc, or any other document is needed, the task is not complete until the file exists on disk at the correct path. For ADRs and the domain glossary, the correct path is whatever the domain doc config specifies — tell the user to run/setup-project-skillsif none has been provided, and otherwise default toCONTEXT.mdanddocs/adr/at the repo root. - One canonical answer per question. One document owns intent, another owns rationale, another owns exact interface facts, and another owns operations.
- Spec before implementation for non-trivial behavior changes. If the task changes user-visible or operator-visible behavior, draft or update the canonical feature spec first.
- Interview before drafting when the request is vague. Do not turn ambiguity into fake confidence.
- Use adaptive questioning, not bureaucratic questionnaires. Start with 3-5 high-leverage questions, then branch only where uncertainty remains.
- Probe before freezing. Question the assumptions behind the request, and surface real tradeoffs, before locking a spec. Skip the adversarial theater when there is no genuine conflict.
- Separate engineering documentation from user-facing documentation. Internal implementation docs and external user docs solve different problems.
- Prefer updating the nearest canonical doc over spawning document sprawl. Do not create documentation theater.
- Status matters. Mark authoritative docs clearly: Draft, Active, Superseded, Deprecated.
- README is a map, not the whole territory. Keep it as orientation and links unless it is intentionally the canonical doc for that narrow topic.
- Operationally significant changes require maintenance documentation. If deployment, rollback, alerts, migrations, or recovery change, update the runbook before declaring the task complete.
- Documentation drift is a bug. If you cannot reconcile a known stale doc immediately, flag it visibly rather than leaving a polished lie.
Routing Matrix
| Situation | Primary doc type | Start with |
| New feature or changed workflow | Feature spec | references/feature-spec.md |
| Vague request with missing constraints | Spec interview | references/specification-interview.md |
| Architectural choice or major tradeoff | ADR | references/adr.md |
| New endpoint, schema, flag, CLI option, contract | Reference docs | references/reference-docs.md |
| Deployment, migration, rollback, incident response | Runbook / maintenance docs | references/runbook.md |
| Public docs for end users | Tutorial / how-to / reference / explanation | references/user-facing-docs.md |
| Mixed or drift-heavy task | Audit + targeted updates | references/REFERENCE.md |
Default Workflow
- Clarify — classify the task and determine whether the missing piece is intent, rationale, exact facts, operations, or user guidance.
- Interview — if the request is underspecified, run the lightweight interview flow from
references/specification-interview.md. - Write engineering docs first when behavior or implementation contracts change. Use the
writetool to create or theedittool to update the actual file on disk:- feature spec for intent
- ADR for rationale
- reference docs for exact interfaces
- runbook for operational reality
- Write user-facing docs second when the change affects discoverability, onboarding, or public workflows. Same rule: file on disk, not in chat.
- Audit for drift — check status markers, supersession links, acceptance criteria, and whether README or other overview docs now point at stale targets.
- Finish only after reconciliation and file verification — documentation work is incomplete if the code changed but the authoritative docs did not. Verify the files exist on disk before declaring the task done.
Interview Guidance
When the request is muddy, restate the user's goal in 1-2 sentences to confirm you have it right. Then ask only the questions needed to freeze the contract:
- Ask probing questions where definitions are unclear, evidence is shaky, stakeholders are hidden, or failure consequences are unstated.
- When the desired outcome collides with a real counter-pressure — speed vs safety, flexibility vs specificity, internal simplicity vs public clarity — name both sides and resolve the tradeoff explicitly before freezing the spec.
If there is no real conflict, do not manufacture one. Clarify, confirm, and move on.
Reference Map
| File | Owns | Use when |
references/REFERENCE.md | Routing index | The task touches multiple doc types or you are unsure where to start |
references/specification-interview.md | Discovery workflow | Requirements are vague, disputed, or missing acceptance criteria |
references/feature-spec.md | Canonical feature intent | You need to define or revise behavior before implementation |
references/adr.md | Decision rationale | You need to document architecture choices and tradeoffs |
references/reference-docs.md | Exact interface facts | You need to update APIs, schemas, settings, or contracts |
references/runbook.md | Operations and recovery | You need deployment, migration, rollback, or troubleshooting guidance |
references/user-facing-docs.md | Diátaxis split | You need tutorial/how-to/reference/explanation guidance |
Content Ownership
This skill owns documentation lifecycle decisions:
- which document types must change
- how to interview for a spec
- how to separate intent, rationale, facts, and operations
- how to route user-facing docs by purpose
- how to call out documentation drift
This skill does not own stack-specific implementation details. Pair it with the relevant framework or product skill once the documentation contract is clear.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- TGPSKI/leather★ 17same 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 repository73 other files it gives its agents.
- agent/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- git-guardrails-claude-codeSkill
- setup-project-skillsSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- websearchSkill
- writing-great-skillsSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- construction-craftSkill
- critical-partnerSkill
- data-intensiveSkill
- diagnosing-bugsSkill
- django-disciplineSkill
- docker-disciplineSkill
- domain-driven-designSkill
- enterprise-patternsSkill
- git-disciplineSkill
- legacy-codeSkill
- production-readinessSkill
- refactoring-passSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- tddSkill
- testing-workflowSkill
- ui-design-directionSkill
- webapp-testingSkill
- writing-for-agentsSkill
- django-allauthSkill
- djangoSkill
- dockerSkill
- drfSkill
- full-calendarSkill
- giteaSkill
- htmxSkill
- http-status-codesSkill
- hyperscriptSkill
- langchainSkill
- litestarSkill
- prestashopSkill
- prSkill
- pykeSkill
- python-asyncSkill
- tablerSkill
- cleanroom-rewriteSkill
- councilSkill
- court-jesterSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- fix-prSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- handoffSkill
- humanifySkill
- implementSkill
- implement-specSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- ponytail-auditSkill
- ponytail-debtSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qaSkill
- 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.

