agentleFS
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/apm/.apm/skills/docs-impact-localizer/SKILL.md

docs-impact-localizer

Skill4.4k starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use this skill to translate a classifier's in-place verdict into a precise, page-by-page work plan for the docs-sync panel. Activate after docs-impact-classifier returns verdict in_place; reads the candidate page list, fetches the actual page contents, narrows scope to specific sections within each page, and emits the per-page task brief the panel fans out against.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Trending

More talk lately.about the whole repository

Dec 2025: 0 mentionsJan 2026: 0 mentionsFeb 2026: 0 mentionsMar 2026: 12 mentionsApr 2026: 7 mentionsMay 2026: 3 mentionsJun 2026: 3 mentionsJul 2026: 3 mentionsAug 2026: 2 mentionsSep 2026: 6 mentionsOct 2026: 21 mentionsNov 2026: 2 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the microsoft/apm repository that our weekly crawl found. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Most recently taken up by

Who's talking about microsoft/apm

The biggest 5 of 59 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 59

Talked about on GitHub, Hacker News and Bluesky (59 times).

On GitHub · 50

45 more on GitHub

On Bluesky · 4

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the page's H2/H3 structure

    line 46
  2. Distinctive:

    If two pages document the same symbol and the diff changes the symbol's behaviour, BOTH pages need an edit AND they must stay consistent.

    line 65

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

docs-impact-localizer

Single responsibility: given a list of candidate pages from the classifier, produce a per-page task brief the docs-sync panel can fan out against.

You are NOT the verdict-maker (classifier owns that). You are NOT the writer (doc-writer owns that). You are the work planner.

When to invoke

The docs-sync orchestrator invokes you ONLY when the classifier returned verdict: in_place. For no_change you don't run. For structural the architect runs first; you may run after, scoped to existing pages that need amendment.

Inputs

  • scope_pages[] from the classifier
  • The PR diff (gh pr diff $PR)
  • .apm/docs-index.yml (per-page metadata)
  • Optional: the structural architect's TOC delta (if you run after the architect on a structural verdict)

Step 1: load page contents

For each path in scope_pages[], read the file. Pages are typically 3-10 KB; total budget for this step is bounded by the candidate count (the classifier should have kept it to <= 6).

Step 2: narrow scope inside each page

For each page, identify the SPECIFIC section(s) that need to change:

  • Read the page's H2/H3 structure
  • For each diff symbol from the classifier output, find the section most directly documenting it
  • Capture line ranges: lines 120-145 not the whole page

The output is a sections_to_edit[] per page, where each entry is:

page: docs/src/content/docs/consumer/install.md
sections_to_edit:
  - section: "## From Git"
    line_range: [120, 145]
    diff_symbol: "--no-cache flag"
    edit_kind: add | modify | remove
    rationale: "the new --no-cache flag is documented nowhere; section already lists other flags so this is the natural home"

Step 3: detect cross-page conflicts

If two pages document the same symbol and the diff changes the symbol's behaviour, BOTH pages need an edit AND they must stay consistent. Flag this in the brief so the CDO synthesizer knows to cross-check coherence between the two redrafts:

cross_page_constraint:
  pages: [path1, path2]
  shared_symbol: "apm install --target"
  consistency_required: "both pages must reflect the same default value"

Step 4: emit the per-page task brief

Return JSON with this shape (one entry per page in scope_pages[]):

{
  "tasks": [
    {
      "page": "docs/src/content/docs/consumer/install.md",
      "persona_owner": "consumer",
      "promise": 1,
      "sections_to_edit": [
        {
          "section": "## From Git",
          "line_range": [120, 145],
          "diff_symbol": "--no-cache flag",
          "edit_kind": "add",
          "rationale": "..."
        }
      ],
      "verify_claims": [
        {"claim": "the flag is named --no-cache", "verify_with": "apm install --help"},
        {"claim": "the flag is documented in click.option decorator", "verify_with": "grep -n no-cache src/apm_cli/commands/install.py"}
      ]
    }
  ],
  "cross_page_constraints": [
    {"pages": [...], "shared_symbol": "...", "consistency_required": "..."}
  ],
  "estimated_panel_calls": 8
}

The verify_claims[] per page is consumed by the python-architect panelist -- it tells the verifier WHICH claims need a S7 tool-call check (run apm install --help, grep the source) rather than prose-trusting.

Output contract

Return a SINGLE JSON document matching the schema in Step 4 as the final message of your task. No prose around the JSON.

Anti-patterns

  • Selecting whole pages when one section suffices (inflates context per panelist).
  • Skipping verify_claims[] -- that's the S7 tool-bridge hook; the verifier needs it.
  • Inventing pages not in scope_pages[] -- that's the classifier's job, not yours. If you think the classifier missed a page, return an extra field localizer_concern instead of expanding scope unilaterally.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.