docs-standard
Skill2 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Create, restructure, review, audit, or fact-check Markdown documentation and module READMEs using audience-first hierarchy, one home per fact, tutorial/reference separation, progressive user-to-developer detail, executed-operation fact-checking, and the slop checklist. Use for new or revised docs, docs-tree organization, documentation-quality audits, and bilingual documentation structure.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- FullFran/Agent-skills-POCtheir own version, first seen Feb 2, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- FullFran/Agent-skills-POC★ 1same 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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-experienceSkill
- agent-notesSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- error-handlingSkill
- find-simplificationsSkill
- lifecycle-reviewSkill
- perf-evidenceSkill
- pre-push-checksSkill
- prose-standardSkill
- record-browser-gifSkill
- responsive-uiSkill
- stacked-prsSkill
- test-reliabilitySkill
- trim-cot-leakageSkill
- ui-ux-reviewSkill
- upgrade-guideSkill
- vibe-harness-bootstrapSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Follow this sequence for each requested scope.
- Very specific: line 14
Read the root and subtree AGENTS.md files, docs/AGENTS.md, the target page, its source and tests, and its navigation owner.
- Very specific: line 16
Place the page at its nearest owner.
- Distinctive: line 18
Write in the order given by page structure: title, Summary, contents, user-facing content, developer-facing content, optional Further …
- Very specific: line 19
When the profile enables surfaces.bilingual-docs, update the counterpart in the same pass and keep headings, lists, tables, code, and links …
- Distinctive: line 20
Verify every claim against code, tests, generators, package metadata, or a current decision owner, and run the operations the page …
- Very specific: line 21
Run the profile's commands.docs-check and git diff --check, then re-read the complete diff once for correctness and once for brevity and …
- Distinctive: line 29
Delete what you could not reproduce: Never carry a command, field, default, or behavior from memory, analogy, or a neighboring README.
- Distinctive: line 30
Check old docs against the latest default branch: Before revising an existing page, fetch and compare against the default branch.
- Distinctive: line 48
Do not apply a universal word limit to exhaustive references.
- Distinctive: line 61
Use prose-standard for sentence-level contract coverage and editorial judgment.
≈ “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 standard
Make every page searchable, newcomer-readable, and exact enough for agents and maintainers. The tiers, writing rules, budgets, and slop checklist live in docs/AGENTS.md; this skill owns the workflow for applying them. Preserve one owner per fact: source, tests, generated catalogs, READMEs, guides, and Agent Notes each keep their own kind of truth. The workflow and quality criteria are guidance; the fact-check procedure is mandatory for every operation claim.
Workflow
Follow this sequence for each requested scope. Keep the common reader path brief, but do not delete failures, ownership, limitations, or other required contracts to reduce words.
- Read the root and subtree
AGENTS.mdfiles,docs/AGENTS.md, the target page, its source and tests, and its navigation owner. - Classify the page by one primary job and reader: quick start, user task guide, contributor tutorial, architecture overview, module reference, generated reference, agent instruction, decision record, or scratch.
- Place the page at its nearest owner. Keep module contracts beside the module's code; use
docs/for cross-module learning, user, developer, and architecture material. - Define the reader's starting state, observable outcome, likely failure, recovery path, and next useful depth before writing details.
- Write in the order given by page structure: title, Summary, contents, user-facing content, developer-facing content, optional Further Exploration.
- When the profile enables
surfaces.bilingual-docs, update the counterpart in the same pass and keep headings, lists, tables, code, and links aligned line for line. - Verify every claim against code, tests, generators, package metadata, or a current decision owner, and run the operations the page instructs (see the fact-check procedure below). Update the owner before any derivative artifact.
- Run the profile's
commands.docs-checkandgit diff --check, then re-read the complete diff once for correctness and once for brevity and fit.
Fact-check procedure: test, do not assume
Documentation states how the product behaves today, and the only admissible evidence for an operation claim is having run it. This applies to every new page and every new paragraph that claims a command, default, error, output, or platform difference.
- Classify the subject before writing install or usage guidance. Read the facts (manifests, entry points, exports), not the folder name. A library, a plugin, a CLI, and a service each have a different usage path; never copy guidance written for another kind.
- Run every claimed operation against the current checkout. Execute each command, configuration snippet, and example exactly as the page will show it; write down only what you observed, including warnings and failure modes. If a claim depends on credentials or a network you do not have, say so and name the verification owner instead of asserting the behavior.
- Delete what you could not reproduce. Never carry a command, field, default, or behavior from memory, analogy, or a neighboring README. When a claim fails to reproduce, fix the claim, not the test.
- Check old docs against the latest default branch. Before revising an existing page, fetch and compare against the default branch; correct stale statements against the code, not against the old prose.
Voice rules
- Summary says what the subject does. The Summary and user-facing sections describe what a reader can do with the subject (outcomes, when to choose it, main cost), never its internal identity or registrations. Omit source identifiers unless the reader uses them directly in configuration, a command, or a public API.
- Developer sections explain, never enumerate. Developer detail covers the design concept, architecture, and approximate data flow, enough to understand how it works, and links code for exact detail. No full API catalogs, column lists, or API-doc restatement.
- Current state only. Ordinary documentation describes the current codebase; history belongs to Agent Notes, postmortems, release notes, and upgrade guides.
- Controlled technical English. Give each sentence an explicit actor and one main action when ambiguity can change behavior; reuse one term per concept; split stacked instructions; preserve modality and exceptions. See page structure.
Quality criteria
- Brief: the common path contains only facts needed for its outcome; exhaustive truth is one link or detail layer away.
- Intuitive: prerequisites precede dependent concepts, one next action is obvious, and headings use terms readers search for.
- Friendly: readers can recognize success, understand risk before acting, recover from likely failure, and choose whether to go deeper.
- Accurate: each durable claim has one owner and a verification path proportionate to its risk.
- Agent-readable: stable headings, anchors, terminology, and ownership support targeted retrieval without loading the whole corpus.
- Newcomer-complete: an engineer with no repository context can reconstruct the relevant architecture or feature through three to five linked pages.
Do not apply a universal word limit to exhaustive references; measure entry-path length, unrelated material scanned per lookup, and largest section, and split by an existing domain owner when retrieval cost is high.
Audit the corpus
Apply the authoring order from docs/AGENTS.md to every human-facing document in scope (not to Agent Notes): locate the document and state its subject; set its permitted detail and move deeper explanations to owning descendants; classify tutorial or reference from intended use, not path; split substantial mixed forms. A target structure is not permission for an opportunistic mass move: move one coherent topic at a time, atomically with every inbound link repaired in the same change, and preserve published routes or add redirects for them. Generated catalogs are never hand-edited.
Then hunt the slop checklist in docs/AGENTS.md, cheapest probes first: use trim-cot-leakage for reasoning-transcript leakage, search distinctive phrases for duplicated rules, replace hand-written catalogs with their authoritative owners, and remove spec-speak from implemented Agent Notes. If removing prose would change promised behavior rather than its explanation, propose the behavior change first (see find-simplifications). Keep every load-bearing rule, preferably as one to three lines plus a link to its rationale.
Detailed references
- Page structure and style: page order, section progression, the module README skeleton, folding, controlled technical English, and emphasis.
- Review criteria: the newcomer test, evidence review, and README review.
Use prose-standard for sentence-level contract coverage and editorial judgment.
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.

