revise-best-practice-skill

name	revise-best-practice-skill
description	Use when an existing SKILL.md has review-best-practice-skill findings to address, a citation has become inaccurate, steps reference an outdated tool, or scope needs adjusting — splitting a skill that covers two concepts, or expanding one that is too shallow.
source	IETF RFC errata process (BCP 9), MDN Web Docs contribution guidelines, Wikipedia article improvement process
tags	["skill-revision","quality-debt","targeted-fix","contributor","maintainer","review-pass"]

Revise Best Practice Skill

Update an existing grimoire SKILL.md to resolve specific findings without touching validated content.

Why This Is Best Practice

Adopted by: Targeted revision of specific findings is the standard maintenance model across all long-lived technical documentation systems — IETF errata correct specific claims in RFCs without replacing the full document, MDN Web Docs uses targeted pull requests per section rather than full-article rewrites, and Wikipedia's peer review process improves articles through iterative section-level fixes rather than wholesale replacement. Impact: Targeted revision preserves validated content while addressing gaps — wholesale rewrite discards working sections and resets review history unnecessarily. Aghajani et al. (2019, MSR) found that the vast majority of documentation fixes in OSS projects are targeted single-section changes; wholesale rewrites are rare and reserved for fundamental practice changes. The IETF errata model demonstrates that long-lived technical documents can remain accurate for decades through targeted correction while full replacements introduce regression risk across all sections. Why best: Fixing only flagged findings — vs. refactoring the whole file "while you're there" — prevents introducing new issues in sections that were already PASS. A full rewrite is the alternative; it costs more, discards verified content, and risks new failures in sections that passed.

Sources: IETF RFC errata process (BCP 9), MDN Web Docs contribution guidelines, Wikipedia article improvement process, Aghajani et al. 2019 (MSR documentation debt)

Steps

1. Load findings

Get the finding set:

• review-best-practice-skill already run → use its structured output directly
• No findings yet → run review-best-practice-skill on the file first; use its output
• Findings from user report (not review-best-practice-skill format) → map each to a review-best-practice-skill criterion name before proceeding

2. Classify each finding by type

Finding type	Scope of fix
Frontmatter field (name, description, source, tags)	Frontmatter only — don't touch body
"Adopted by" inaccurate or vague	## Why This Is Best Practice only
"Impact" citation weak or fabricated	## Why This Is Best Practice only
Steps reference outdated tool or API	Affected step(s) only
Steps not actionable or too abstract	Affected step(s) only
Scope too broad (two separable concepts)	Split — see step 4
Scope too shallow (<50 lines)	Expand Steps with concrete examples
Domain safety footer missing	Add footer only

3. Order revisions: structural before content

Structural before content: Always apply structural revisions before content revisions.

1. First: fix step ordering, add/remove steps, fix routing logic, add missing required fields
2. Then: improve wording, strengthen examples, tighten descriptions

Structural changes invalidate content — if you improve wording in a step that will be removed, the content work is wasted. Structure is the skeleton; content is the flesh.

4. Fix each finding in isolation

Fix the flagged item. Don't touch adjacent text that wasn't flagged.

If the finding involves a citation, adoption claim, or a tool/API's current status, search the internet to confirm the corrected information is accurate before writing it in — don't replace one unverified claim with another. If no internet-access tool is available in this environment, say so explicitly and proceed on best available knowledge — flag the fix as unverified rather than silently skipping the check or asserting it was confirmed. After searching, state what was found (or that nothing conclusive turned up) before proceeding — don't just announce the check and discard the result.

❌ Citation wrong → rewrite entire Why section
✅ Citation wrong → replace the one sentence containing the citation

❌ One step vague → rewrite all steps for consistency
✅ One step vague → rewrite that step only

If fixing a citation requires changing the surrounding sentence for grammatical coherence, that is acceptable. Touching unrelated paragraphs is not.

5. Scope fix: splitting

If the finding is "skill covers two separable concepts":

1. Identify concept A (primary — stays in this file) and concept B (extract)
2. Remove concept B content from the current skill
3. Create a new directory for concept B's skill
4. Run write-best-practice-skill to author the extracted skill from scratch — do not copy the removed content verbatim; the extracted skill needs its own Why section, sources, and steps
5. Run review-best-practice-skill on both resulting skills

This is a scope reduction, not a deprecation. Do not add a deprecation notice to the concept A skill.

6. Verify: re-run review-best-practice-skill

After all fixes are applied, run review-best-practice-skill on the updated file:

• All previously flagged criteria now ✅ → proceed to PR
• New ❌ introduced by the fix → resolve before opening PR
• Previously PASS criteria now ❌ → the fix caused a regression; revert that change

7. Open a PR

PR title: fix(<domain>/<skill-name>): <one-line description of what changed>

PR description: one line per finding, stating what it was and how it was resolved.

PR template: When submitting a skill revision as a PR, title format: fix(skills): [what was fixed] in [skill-name]. Body must include:

• What finding triggered this revision (quote the NEEDS-REVISION finding)
• What was changed (structural or content)
• Any STANDARD.md criteria newly passing after the revision

Rules

• Never fix what wasn't flagged — scope creep in revision introduces regressions
• One PR per skill — if multiple skills need revision, open separate PRs
• Always re-run review-best-practice-skill after revision — don't assume the fix resolved the finding
• Splitting is a revision, not a deprecation — do not mark the original skill as deprecated
• If a finding cannot be resolved without invalidating the skill's core claim, use deprecate-best-practice-skill instead

Common Mistakes

Rewriting the whole skill for one citation: fix the citation sentence; leave everything else.

"Improving" unflagged sections: if review-best-practice-skill didn't flag it, don't touch it — even if you'd write it differently.

Skipping re-verification: a fix can introduce a new failure. Always re-run review-best-practice-skill after editing.

Treating scope reduction as deprecation: splitting a skill that was too broad is a fix. Both resulting skills live on — neither is retired.