doc-maintenance
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Audit top-level documentation (README, SPEC, PRODUCT) against recent git history to find drift — shipped features missing from docs or features listed as upcoming that already landed. Proposes minimal edits, creates a branch, and opens a PR. Use when asked to review docs for accuracy, after major feature merges, or on a periodic schedule.
- Commits and pushes
8 other projects use a version of this, 6 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- wefio/NodeMemoryGraphtheir own version, first seen Nov 5, 2026
- Hans010101/bitworldedited, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- ever-works/skillsedited, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- paperclipai/paperclipedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- htnabe/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 5, 2026
- microsoft/amplifier-app-paperclipedited, first seen Jun 5, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 6
- paperclipai/paperclip★ 112k97% same
- ancilis/bedlam★ 1599% same
- ever-works/skills★ 196% same
- Hans010101/bitworld★ 199% same
- jpoindexter/theft-kit★ 199% same
- microsoft/amplifier-app-paperclip★ 199% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- htnabe/skills★ 0same name
- wefio/NodeMemoryGraph★ 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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- company-creatorSkill
- create-agent-adapterSkill
- deal-with-security-advisorySkill
- prcheckloopSkill
- pr-reportSkill
- release-changelog-discord-messageSkill
- release-changelogSkill
- releaseSkill
- design-guideSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- web-design-guidelinesSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. 13 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
13
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
0
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
- Common: line 18
After major feature merges
- Common: line 19
When asked "are our docs up to date?"
- Common: line 20
When asked to audit README / SPEC / PRODUCT accuracy
- Common: line 83
If there are no notable changes, skip to Step 7 (update cursor and exit).
- Very specific: line 99
Use references/audit-checklist.md as the structured checklist.
- Very specific: line 100
Use references/section-map.md to know where to look for each feature area.
- Common: line 114
No cosmetic changes: Don't fix typos, reformat tables, or reorganize sections unless they're part of a factual fix.
- Common: line 116
No new sections: If a feature needs a whole new section, note it in the PR description as a follow-up — don't add it in a maintenance pass.
- Common: line 124
Commit the changes and open a PR:
- Common: line 161
After a successful audit (whether or not edits were needed), update the cursor:
- Common: line 167
If edits were made, this is already committed in the PR branch.
- Common: line 185
If removing a roadmap item, don't leave a gap — remove the bullet cleanly
- Common: line 186
If adding a feature mention, match the format of surrounding entries (e.g.
- Common: line 188
Keep README changes especially minimal — it shouldn't churn often
- Common: line 195
When the skill completes, report:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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
Doc Maintenance Skill
Detect documentation drift and fix it via PR — no rewrites, no churn.
When to Use
- Periodic doc review (e.g. weekly or after releases)
- After major feature merges
- When asked "are our docs up to date?"
- When asked to audit README / SPEC / PRODUCT accuracy
Target Documents
| Document | Path | What matters |
| README | README.md | Features table, roadmap, quickstart, "what is" accuracy, "works with" table |
| SPEC | doc/SPEC.md | No false "not supported" claims, major model/schema accuracy |
| PRODUCT | doc/PRODUCT.md | Core concepts, feature list, principles accuracy |
Out of scope: DEVELOPING.md, DATABASE.md, CLI.md, doc/plans/, skill files, release notes. These are dev-facing or ephemeral — lower risk of user-facing confusion.
Workflow
Step 1 — Detect what changed
Find the last review cursor:
# Read the last-reviewed commit SHA
CURSOR_FILE=".doc-review-cursor"
if [ -f "$CURSOR_FILE" ]; then
LAST_SHA=$(cat "$CURSOR_FILE" | head -1)
else
# First run: look back 60 days
LAST_SHA=$(git log --format="%H" --after="60 days ago" --reverse | head -1)
fiThen gather commits since the cursor:
git log "$LAST_SHA"..HEAD --oneline --no-mergesStep 2 — Classify changes
Scan commit messages and changed files. Categorize into:
- Feature — new capabilities (keywords:
feat,add,implement,support) - Breaking — removed/renamed things (keywords:
remove,breaking,drop,rename) - Structural — new directories, config changes, new adapters, new CLI commands
Ignore: refactors, test-only changes, CI config, dependency bumps, doc-only changes, style/formatting commits. These don't affect doc accuracy.
For borderline cases, check the actual diff — a commit titled "refactor: X" that adds a new public API is a feature.
Step 3 — Build a change summary
Produce a concise list like:
Since last review (<sha>, <date>):
- FEATURE: Plugin system merged (runtime, SDK, CLI, slots, event bridge)
- FEATURE: Project archiving added
- BREAKING: Removed legacy webhook adapter
- STRUCTURAL: New .agents/skills/ directory conventionIf there are no notable changes, skip to Step 7 (update cursor and exit).
Step 4 — Audit each target doc
For each target document, read it fully and cross-reference against the change summary. Check for:
- False negatives — major shipped features not mentioned at all
- False positives — features listed as "coming soon" / "roadmap" / "planned" / "not supported" / "TBD" that already shipped
- Quickstart accuracy — install commands, prereqs, and startup instructions still correct (README only)
- Feature table accuracy — does the features section reflect current capabilities? (README only)
- Works-with accuracy — are supported adapters/integrations listed correctly?
Use references/audit-checklist.md as the structured checklist.
Use references/section-map.md to know where to look for each feature area.
Step 5 — Create branch and apply minimal edits
# Create a branch for the doc updates
BRANCH="docs/maintenance-$(date +%Y%m%d)"
git checkout -b "$BRANCH"Apply only the edits needed to fix drift. Rules:
- Minimal patches only. Fix inaccuracies, don't rewrite sections.
- Preserve voice and style. Match the existing tone of each document.
- No cosmetic changes. Don't fix typos, reformat tables, or reorganize sections unless they're part of a factual fix.
- No new sections. If a feature needs a whole new section, note it in the PR description as a follow-up — don't add it in a maintenance pass.
- Roadmap items: Move shipped features out of Roadmap. Add a brief mention in the appropriate existing section if there isn't one already. Don't add long descriptions.
Step 6 — Open a PR
Commit the changes and open a PR:
git add README.md doc/SPEC.md doc/PRODUCT.md .doc-review-cursor
git commit -m "docs: update documentation for accuracy
- [list each fix briefly]
Co-Authored-By: Workcell <noreply@workcell.ing>"
git push -u origin "$BRANCH"
gh pr create \
--title "docs: periodic documentation accuracy update" \
--body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Summary
Automated doc maintenance pass. Fixes documentation drift detected since
last review.
### Changes
- [list each fix]
### Change summary (since last review)
- [list notable code changes that triggered doc updates]
## Review notes
- Only factual accuracy fixes — no style/cosmetic changes
- Preserves existing voice and structure
- Larger doc additions (new sections, tutorials) noted as follow-ups
🤖 Generated by doc-maintenance skill
EOF
)"Step 7 — Update the cursor
After a successful audit (whether or not edits were needed), update the cursor:
git rev-parse HEAD > .doc-review-cursorIf edits were made, this is already committed in the PR branch. If no edits were needed, commit the cursor update to the current branch.
Change Classification Rules
| Signal | Category | Doc update needed? |
feat:, add, implement, support in message | Feature | Yes if user-facing |
remove, drop, breaking, !: in message | Breaking | Yes |
| New top-level directory or config file | Structural | Maybe |
fix:, bugfix | Fix | No (unless it changes behavior described in docs) |
refactor:, chore:, ci:, test: | Maintenance | No |
docs: | Doc change | No (already handled) |
| Dependency bumps only | Maintenance | No |
Patch Style Guide
- Fix the fact, not the prose
- If removing a roadmap item, don't leave a gap — remove the bullet cleanly
- If adding a feature mention, match the format of surrounding entries (e.g. if features are in a table, add a table row)
- Keep README changes especially minimal — it shouldn't churn often
- For SPEC/PRODUCT, prefer updating existing statements over adding new ones (e.g. change "not supported in V1" to "supported via X" rather than adding a new section)
Output
When the skill completes, report:
- How many commits were scanned
- How many notable changes were found
- How many doc edits were made (and to which files)
- PR link (if edits were made)
- Any follow-up items that need larger doc work
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.

