docs-workflow-planning
Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Create a documentation plan from requirements analysis output. Dispatches the docs-planner agent. Invoked by the orchestrator.
In this repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- action-commentsSkill
- article-extractorSkill
- docs-convert-gdoc-mdSkill
- docs-orchestratorSkill
- docs-review-content-qualitySkill
- docs-review-modular-docsSkill
- docs-review-securitySkill
- docs-review-styleSkill
- docs-review-technicalSkill
- docs-ticket-readinessSkill
- docs-workflow-code-analysisSkill
- docs-workflow-create-jiraSkill
- docs-workflow-create-merge-requestSkill
- docs-workflow-jira-readySkill
- docs-workflow-pipeline-diagnosticsSkill
- docs-workflow-pr-analysisSkill
- docs-workflow-quality-gateSkill
- docs-workflow-requirementsSkill
- docs-workflow-scope-req-auditSkill
- docs-workflow-security-reviewSkill
- docs-workflow-startSkill
- docs-workflow-style-reviewSkill
- docs-workflow-tech-reviewSkill
- docs-workflow-writingSkill
- git-pr-readerSkill
- ibm-sg-audience-and-mediumSkill
- ibm-sg-language-and-grammarSkill
- ibm-sg-legal-informationSkill
- ibm-sg-numbers-and-measurementSkill
- ibm-sg-punctuationSkill
- ibm-sg-referencesSkill
- ibm-sg-structure-and-formatSkill
- ibm-sg-technical-elementsSkill
- jira-readerSkill
- jira-writerSkill
- learn-codeSkill
- lint-with-valeSkill
- mdita-writeSkill
- query-codeSkill
- redhat-docs-tocSkill
- rh-ssg-accessibilitySkill
- rh-ssg-formattingSkill
- rh-ssg-grammar-and-languageSkill
- rh-ssg-gui-and-linksSkill
- rh-ssg-legal-and-supportSkill
- rh-ssg-release-notesSkill
- rh-ssg-structureSkill
- rh-ssg-technical-examplesSkill
- rn-known-issuesSkill
- understand-pull-requestSkill
- validate-plugin-prereqsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 106
After the agent completes, verify the output file exists at <OUTPUT_FILE>.
- Distinctive: line 108
If no output file is found, report an error.
- Distinctive: line 114
Do not hand-author the sidecar — a hand-written sidecar drifts from the schema and uses an orchestrator-delayed timestamp instead of a real …
≈ “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
Documentation Planning Step
Step skill for the docs-orchestrator pipeline. Follows the step skill contract: parse args → dispatch agent → write output.
Arguments
$1— JIRA ticket ID (required)--base-path <path>— Base output path (e.g.,.agent_workspace/proj-123)
Input
<base-path>/requirements/requirements.mdOutput
<base-path>/planning/plan.mdExecution
1. Parse arguments
Extract the ticket ID and --base-path from the args string.
Set the paths:
INPUT_FILE="${BASE_PATH}/requirements/requirements.md"
OUTPUT_DIR="${BASE_PATH}/planning"
OUTPUT_FILE="${OUTPUT_DIR}/plan.md"
mkdir -p "$OUTPUT_DIR"2. Dispatch agent
You MUST use the Agent tool to invoke the docs-planner subagent. Do NOT read the agent's markdown file or attempt to perform the agent's work yourself — the agent has a specialized system prompt and must run as an isolated subagent.
Agent tool parameters:
subagent_type:docs-skills:docs-plannerdescription:Create documentation plan for <TICKET>run_in_background:false(the orchestrator must wait for the planner to finish before verifying output)
Prompt (pass this as the prompt parameter to the Agent tool):
Create a comprehensive documentation plan based on the requirements analysis.
Read the requirements from:
<INPUT_FILE>The plan must include:
- Gap analysis (existing vs needed documentation)
- Module specifications (type, title, audience, content points, prerequisites, dependencies)
- Implementation order based on dependencies
- Assembly structure (how modules group together)
- Content sources from JIRA and PR/MR analysis
REQUIRED: Module Specifications format
Your plan MUST include a
## Module Specificationssection that lists every module (new or updated) using this exact bullet format:## Module Specifications - Module: filename.adoc (TYPE, Create|Update) - Module: other-filename.adoc (TYPE, Create|Update)Where TYPE is CONCEPT, PROCEDURE, REFERENCE, or ASSEMBLY. This section is machine-parsed to count modules — the pipeline will fail if it is missing or uses a different format. Place it before the detailed module descriptions. You may organize detailed descriptions however you like (implementation groups, priority sections, etc.) — only this summary list has a format requirement.
Save the complete plan to:
<OUTPUT_FILE>
[Include only if <BASE_PATH>/code-analysis/ONBOARDING.md exists] Append the following paragraph to the prompt:
MANDATORY: Scope gating by code analysis
You MUST read
<BASE_PATH>/code-analysis/ONBOARDING.mdand<BASE_PATH>/code-analysis/registry.jsonbefore creating any module specifications. These files contain structured analysis of the source repository produced by code-learner.This is not optional. The module registry must inform your planning.
Use the module registry's
onboarding_priorityfield to scope documentation:
- read-first modules: create full module specifications. These are the core modules that new developers must understand first
- read-second modules: create summary module specifications. Include purpose and key APIs but less detail than read-first modules
- skip modules: Do NOT create module specifications. These are utility, test, or generated modules that don't warrant standalone documentation. If relevant to a read-first module, mention them briefly in that module's context
Use the
public_api,dependencies, anddata_flowfields from module summaries in<BASE_PATH>/code-analysis/summaries/to inform content points and prerequisites in each module specification.Self-check before writing the plan: Count your module specifications. Verify that no skip-priority module has a full module specification — if any does, remove it or downgrade to a brief mention within a related module.
[Include only if <BASE_PATH>/pr-analysis/ exists] Also append:
PR change context
Read the PR analysis from
<BASE_PATH>/pr-analysis/PR-*-ANALYSIS.md. Focus documentation on modules listed in the "Changes by Module" section — these are the modules directly affected by the code changes that triggered this documentation work. Prioritize these modules for full specifications regardless of their onboarding_priority.
3. Verify output
After the agent completes, verify the output file exists at <OUTPUT_FILE>.
If no output file is found, report an error.
[If <BASE_PATH>/code-analysis/registry.json exists] Cross-check the plan against the registry: read the module registry and verify that no skip-priority module has a full module specification in the plan. If any skip module was given a full spec, log a warning: "Plan includes full specs for skip-priority module(s): <list>. These are typically utility modules that don't warrant standalone documentation." This is a warning, not a blocker.
4. Write step-result.json
Do not hand-author the sidecar — a hand-written sidecar drifts from the schema and uses an orchestrator-delayed timestamp instead of a real wall-clock one. Run the script:
python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/write_step_result.py \
--ticket "<TICKET>" \
--plan-file "<OUTPUT_FILE>" \
--sidecar "<OUTPUT_DIR>/step-result.json"The script counts module specifications in the plan (list items starting with - Module: or
- Update: within the ## Module Specifications section, and level-3 ### Module: or
### Update: headings anywhere, ignoring code blocks and blockquotes) and writes the conformant
step-result.json with a real wall-clock completed_at. If the script exits non-zero, fix the
arguments and re-run; do not substitute a stub.
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.

