بنقرة واحدة
ensure-docs
Verify documentation coverage and generate missing docs interactively
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
القائمة
Verify documentation coverage and generate missing docs interactively
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use when you need a bite-sized, TDD-driven implementation plan but do NOT have a brainstorm-beagle spec to plan against. quick-plan reconstructs intent from the current conversation, fans out domain-expert exploration subagents across the codebase, and synthesizes the same plan format write-plan produces — without requiring `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md`. Triggers on: "quick plan", "plan this out", "plan what we just discussed", "turn this into an implementation plan", "plan this without a spec", "I don't have a spec, just plan it", "write-plan but no spec". Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants an implementation or TDD plan and there is no spec to plan against — even if they just say "plan it" after discussing a feature. Writes to `.beagle/plans/<slug>/plan.md`. If a finalized spec already exists at `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md`, prefer write-plan. Does NOT brainstorm specs, write code, or execute the plan — produces the plan document (and an optional handoff prompt) only.
Use when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: "brainstorm this", "I have an idea for...", "help me think through this project", "what should I build", "spec this out". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews — produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.
Use as the follow-up to brainstorm-beagle when a spec has an Open Questions section (or quietly carries latent gaps) that need closing before planning or implementation can begin. Triggers on: "resolve the open questions", "close the gaps in this spec", "research the open items", "finalize my spec", "make this spec implementation-ready", "answer the TBDs". Also triggers whenever the user points at a brainstorm-beagle spec and asks for research, proposals, or answers to unresolved items. Orchestrates parallel research subagents when available (falls back to inline sequential research otherwise), proposes answers one at a time for user approval, then rewrites the spec in place so it arrives at planning with no known gaps. Does NOT write code, design implementation, or create plans — it only produces a complete spec.
Use when you have a finalized brainstorm-beagle spec at `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md` and need a bite-sized, TDD-driven implementation plan before any code is written. Triggers on: "write a plan", "plan this spec", "turn the spec into a plan", "now plan the implementation", "write-plan". Reads the spec, designs the file structure, decomposes work into 2-5 minute TDD steps with exact paths and commands, self-reviews against the spec, gets user approval, then writes to `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/plan.md` and offers to generate an execution handoff prompt via the subagent-prompt skill. Does NOT brainstorm specs, write code, or execute the plan — produces the plan document (and an optional handoff prompt) only.
Core technical documentation writing principles for voice, tone, structure, and LLM-friendly patterns. Use when writing or reviewing any documentation.
Generate first-draft technical documentation from code analysis
| name | ensure-docs |
| description | Verify documentation coverage and generate missing docs interactively |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Verify documentation coverage across a codebase, report gaps, and generate missing docs. If the agent supports subagents, dispatch one verifier per detected language in parallel; otherwise run the same per-language verification sequentially — the output is identical either way.
Coverage has two complementary lenses, and a healthy project needs both:
Complete steps in order. Do not advance until each step’s Pass is satisfied.
Language detection — Follow Phase 1 (language detection) in references/workflow.md.
Load standards — Read the sections for your detected languages (language standards, verifier prompts, consolidation format) in the same reference file.
Verification — Verify each qualifying language using the verifier prompts and JSON output shape in the reference (Phase 2). If the agent supports subagents, run one verifier per language in parallel; otherwise run them sequentially.
language, files_scanned, and findings (array, possibly empty).Diataxis balance check — Run the Diataxis type balance check against the project's existing docs (e.g. a docs/ tree, README, or wiki).
Consolidated report — Merge results per Phase 3 (summary table, severity grouping, detailed findings if requested). Include the Diataxis balance alongside symbol coverage.
Generation — Only if --report-only is not set: offer choices per Phase 4; apply doc edits only after an explicit user choice to generate. For a missing Diataxis type, route generation through draft-docs for the relevant type rather than generating inline.
Post-edit verification — After any generation, run or offer the linter commands in Phase 5 of the reference for languages you changed, when those tools exist in the repo.
N/A with a one-line reason (e.g. tool not configured); remaining issues are listed or cleared.Survey the project's prose documentation (a docs/ tree, README, wiki, or doc site) and classify what exists into the four Diataxis types. Use the compass to classify — action or cognition? acquisition or application? — per docs-style/references/diataxis-compass.md.
Report the balance as a table:
| Type | Present? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Tutorial (learning) | yes / no / thin | e.g. "No getting-started / first-project guide" |
| How-To (tasks) | yes / no / thin | e.g. "Several task guides under docs/how-to/" |
| Reference (lookup) | yes / no / thin | e.g. "API reference generated, but no CLI reference" |
| Explanation (understanding) | yes / no / thin | e.g. "No architecture / design-rationale docs" |
Flag, in priority order:
Do not propose generating empty skeletons for missing types. Following the Diataxis "work by improvement" principle, recommend the single highest-value document to add or fix next, and offer to draft it via draft-docs.
--report-only to skip generation.