agentleFS
wilbeibiwilbeibi/wilbeibi-skills/skills/write-docs/SKILL.md

write-docs

Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Write or critique prose that ships with a codebase — READMEs, guides and runbooks, CLI help and error text, code comments, AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md, commit messages, PR titles and descriptions, and changelog entries. Use when drafting or editing these, including commits and PRs written as part of another task. Do NOT use to review the code in a PR (use code-review), or for blog posts (blog-review), design docs or ADRs (grill-me), or skills (write-skill).

43 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use close-spec, design-with-images and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • dzhngSkill

    close-spec

    When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • dzhngSkill

    design-with-images

    Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • transitive-bullshitSkill

    compare-screenshots

    Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LucasMatuszewskiSkill

    audit-agents

    Audit and maintain agent configuration files (.claude/agents, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, agent-memory). Checks for duplicates, outdated info, naming conflicts, wrong technical facts, and files over 200 lines. Fixes all issues and commits.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • wolverin0Skill

    audit-decisions

    Standardize remediation decisions, baseline-policy entries, and legal-review banners for accepted, deferred, or policy-blocked audit findings.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • rhnfzlSkill

    explore-unknowns

    Walk the user through mapping the unknowns of a task before, during, and after they build it, and hand them a four-quadrant map (settled ground, open decisions, taste, and landmines) they keep. Reach for this eagerly whenever a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the codebase or domain is unfamiliar, the user will "know it when they see it", a reference implementation must be understood before porting, a build-queue or architecture-changing task is about to start, a mid-build deviation needs capturing, or a finished change needs buy-in or verified understanding before merge. Trigger even when the skill is not named: "do a blindspot pass", "find my unknown unknowns", "interview me about this change", "brainstorm the approach for a task I am about to build", "help me scope this", "what am I missing here", "plan this before I build", "I know nothing about X in this codebase". When a territory profile is present it reads memory and the graph first and feeds the map into the build pipeline; without one it degrades to a plain general map. Not for trivial or mechanical tasks with clear acceptance criteria, single-fact lookups, pure debugging of a known symptom, or pure code review, those have their own tools. Do not use it to run the build itself; the map is the deliverable and implementation remains a separate task, whether it has not started or is already underway.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • +6 more from dzhng

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 42 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    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
  1. Very specific:

    Not this skill: blog posts and essays (use blog-review), design docs, ADRs (use grill-me), internal service wikis, or authoring a skill …

    line 19
  2. Very specific:

    Read the implementation, schema, tests, --help, or diff that establishes the facts.

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    Check that every claim, command, caveat, and boundary still matches the source.

    line 27
  4. Distinctive:

    Use evidence instead of quality adjectives.

    line 41
  5. Distinctive:

    Use one name for one thing.

    line 42

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 42 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.

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

write-docs

Pick the artifact, read that file, then write. Do not load more than one — the conventions differ and mixing them produces documents that serve nobody.

Writing…ReadReader you are serving
A README for a public lib, CLI, or agent toolREADMES.mdsomeone deciding in 30 seconds whether to use this
A developer guide, tutorial, runbook, migration, or deprecationGUIDES.mdsomeone trying to complete a task without guessing
CLI flags, subcommands, --help, error text, output contractsCLI.mdsomeone typing at a prompt, and the script that wraps them
Code comments, docstrings, inline rationaleCOMMENTS.mdthe maintainer reading this during an outage
AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md operating guidesAGENTSMD.mdan agent with no memory of your project
Commit messages, PR descriptions, changelog entriesPR.mda maintainer running git log in two years; for a PR, also the reviewer who must act today

Not this skill: blog posts and essays (use blog-review), design docs, ADRs (use grill-me), internal service wikis, or authoring a skill (use write-skill).

Workflow

  1. Read the implementation, schema, tests, --help, or diff that establishes the facts.
  2. Name the reader and the action this document must enable.
  3. Choose one canonical term for each repeated concept. Preserve exact API names and identifiers.
  4. Draft through the selected artifact lens.
  5. Check that every claim, command, caveat, and boundary still matches the source.
  6. Apply the clarity mode below, then run the checker. Treat heuristic findings as questions, not automatic edits.

Clarity modes

  • Strict — procedures, safety rules, agent workflows, CLI help, and recovery instructions. Also any text whose reader cannot ask a follow-up question: tool and function descriptions, error messages, and output another agent or script parses. Put conditions before commands. Use imperative steps, one action per step, direct verbs, simple tenses, and sentences of at most 20 words.
  • Natural — README narrative, explanations, comments, and PR rationale. Keep terminology and actors clear, but allow contractions, semicolons, sentence rhythm, and passive voice when the actor is unknown or irrelevant.

Apply modes by content block. A README quickstart can be strict while its motivation remains natural.

Shared rules

  • Lead with the reader's goal and shortest path. Put provenance and history later or omit them.
  • Be genuine. Write as a maintainer helping a reader, not as a product sheet imitating confidence.
  • Use evidence instead of quality adjectives. Give the measurement, example, or boundary behind the claim.
  • Use one name for one thing. Do not rotate synonyms unless they identify different concepts.
  • Name the doer and the action within the first eight words of a sentence. An abstract noun as subject (the configuration of, the handling of) hides them: make the doer the subject and the action the verb.
  • One idea per sentence. Open on what the reader already holds and end on the new name or value; this outranks active voice. A condition longer than ten words becomes its own step.
  • Break noun stacks of four or more words: “calibration of the connection resistance,” not “connection resistance calibration procedure.”
  • Say each fact once. Omit template sections that do not change the reader's next action.
  • Cut words that announce or reassure: This document describes, simply, obviously. Readers assume the opposite of an intensifier, and simply blames them when the step fails.
  • A hedge in a procedure is a missing condition: write if X, do Y, not you may need to do Y. In explanation, one hedge states uncertainty and two in a sentence hide it.
  • State unsupported cases and tradeoffs. Simpler wording must not erase precise technical meaning.

Check the draft

python3 scripts/prose_lint.py --mode strict <path>
python3 scripts/prose_lint.py --mode natural <path>

Use - for stdin and --json for structured findings. Exit 1 means strict errors; review-only findings return 0. Add <!-- prose-lint-ignore --> to ignore one line. The checker cannot detect synonym rotation without project context, so check terminology manually. This is not an STE certification or a substitute for factual review. See CLARITY-REFERENCE.md for rationale and sources.

Rewriting an existing document

  • Grep tests and CI for strings pinned from the document before you restructure it. If a test pins wording, make it assert the requirement (order, a link's presence) instead of the exact text. Name the changed assertion in the PR.
  • Find copies derived from it: package README, docs site, translations. Update them or state that they are out of scope.

Reviewing rather than writing

Same lens, inverted: verify the artifact against its source, then report what the target reader cannot do, cannot trust, or must read twice. Lead with the defect and its location, not with praise.

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.