| name | nw-divio-framework |
| description | DIVIO/Diataxis four-quadrant documentation framework - type definitions, classification decision tree, and signal catalog |
| user-invocable | false |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
DIVIO Documentation Framework
The Four Quadrants
Exactly four documentation types. Each serves one purpose. Never mix.
Tutorial
Orientation: Learning | Need: "Teach me" | Key Q: Can newcomer follow without external context?
Purpose: enable first success | Assumption: user knows nothing | Format: step-by-step guided experience
Success: gains competence + confidence | Include: safe repeatable steps, immediate feedback, building blocks
Exclude: problem-solving, assumed knowledge, comprehensive coverage
How-to Guide
Orientation: Task | Need: "Help me do X" | Key Q: Achieves specific, measurable outcome?
Purpose: accomplish specific objective | Assumption: baseline knowledge, needs goal completion
Format: focused steps to outcome | Success: task completed
Include: clear goal, actionable steps, completion indicator | Exclude: teaching, background, all scenarios
Reference
Orientation: Information | Need: "What is X?" | Key Q: Factually complete and lookup-ready?
Purpose: accurate lookup | Assumption: user knows what to look for | Format: structured, concise, factual
Success: finds correct info quickly | Include: complete API/function details, parameters, returns, errors
Exclude: narrative, tutorials, opinions
Explanation
Orientation: Understanding | Need: "Why is X?" | Key Q: Explains reasoning and context?
Purpose: conceptual understanding | Assumption: user wants "why" | Format: discursive, reasoning-focused
Success: understands design rationale | Include: context, reasoning, alternatives, architectural decisions
Exclude: step-by-step, API details, task completion
Classification Matrix
PRACTICAL THEORETICAL
STUDYING: Tutorial Explanation
WORKING: How-to Guide Reference
Adjacent: Tutorial/How-to (both have steps, differ in assumed knowledge) | How-to/Reference (both "at work") | Reference/Explanation (both knowledge depth) | Explanation/Tutorial (both "studying")
Classification Decision Tree
START: What is the user's primary need?
1. Is user learning for the first time?
YES -> TUTORIAL
NO -> Continue
2. Is user trying to accomplish a specific task?
YES -> Does it assume baseline knowledge?
YES -> HOW-TO GUIDE
NO -> TUTORIAL (reclassify)
NO -> Continue
3. Is user looking up specific information?
YES -> Is it factual/lookup content?
YES -> REFERENCE
NO -> Likely EXPLANATION
NO -> Continue
4. Is user trying to understand "why"?
YES -> EXPLANATION
NO -> Re-evaluate (content may need restructuring)
Classification Signals
Tutorial Signals
Positive: "Getting started", "Your first...", "Prerequisites: None", "What you'll learn", "Step 1, Step 2...", "You should see..."
Red flags: "Assumes prior knowledge", "If you need to...", "For advanced users..."
How-to Signals
Positive: "How to [verb]", "Before you start" (with prerequisites), "Steps", "Done:" or "Result:"
Red flags: "Let's understand what X is...", "First, let's learn about..."
Reference Signals
Positive: "API", "Parameters", "Returns", "Throws", "Type:", Tables of functions/methods
Red flags: "This is probably...", "You might want to...", Conversational tone
Explanation Signals
Positive: "Why", "Background", "Architecture", "Design decision", "Trade-offs", "Consider", "Because"
Red flags: "1. Create...", "2. Run...", "Step-by-step", "Do this:"
JTBD-First Resolution (When in doubt, ask the JTBD)
Provenance: Ale 2026-05-02. "La JTBD ci dice quale need stiamo soddisfando."
When the four-types decision tree is ambiguous, OR when a stylistic decision inside a chosen type has plausible alternatives (ordering, fold-vs-keep, scratch-vs-real-data, prose-vs-table, etc.), DO NOT pick by aesthetic preference. Return to the document's JTBD and let the answer fall out.
Each Diataxis type maps to a canonical JTBD:
| Type | Canonical JTBD | Implied constraints |
|---|
| Tutorial | "Build my mental model of X by doing it once, end-to-end, without risking my real project state." | Reproducible, safe, self-contained, cause-effect visible |
| How-to | "Fix this specific situation right now; don't teach me fundamentals." | Problem-statement first, decision tree, no preamble, link forward to Tutorial for newcomers |
| Reference | "Look up a specific answer (flag, exit code, schema field, error message)." | ctrl-F friendly, dense, alphabetical/systematic, no narrative, separate H2 per lookup category |
| Explanation | "Understand the design rationale so I can extend or critique it." | Discursive, links to evidence (probes, RCAs, ADRs), no how-to instructions, no command examples beyond the minimum needed for context |
Application: resolving a stylistic dispute
Worked example, Tutorial Q: scratch directory vs use the project's seeded data?
- JTBD: "Build mental model end-to-end without risking my real project state."
- Constraint surfaced: "without risking" → seeded data DOES risk contamination → scratch wins.
- Constraint surfaced: "end-to-end" → cause-effect visible → seeded data hides cause-effect under pre-existing entries → scratch wins.
Worked example, Reference Q: fold three short sections into one "Notes"?
- JTBD: "Look up a specific answer."
- Constraint surfaced: "specific answer" → ctrl-F friendly → 3 distinct H2 entries are 3 distinct landing points → folding hurts the JTBD.
- Verdict: keep separate.
Worked example, README "Learn More" Q: alphabetical or semantic grouping?
- JTBD on a README is "I'm new; show me docs in the order I should read them" — pedagogical browsing, NOT lookup.
- Constraint surfaced: "in the order I should read them" → semantic grouping (install adjacent, authoring adjacent, troubleshooting last) → wins.
- Alphabetical serves a DIFFERENT JTBD ("I know the doc name") which has another surface (file system / search).
Decision protocol
When facing a stylistic ambiguity inside a chosen type:
- Restate the document's JTBD in one sentence (use the canonical JTBD as the starting point, refine if the doc is more specific).
- List the constraints implied by that JTBD (be concrete: "reproducible", "ctrl-F friendly", "links to evidence").
- Compare each candidate option against the constraint list.
- Pick the option satisfying the most constraints. If tied, pick the option that fails the FEWEST constraints (loss-aversion).
This procedure replaces aesthetic debate with a falsifiable check.
Anti-pattern: collapse via JTBD-blending
Some authors blend two JTBDs in one document ("a Tutorial that's also a Reference"). This is the same collapse pattern the four-types-only rule rejects, surfaced via the JTBD lens. Detection: if the document has TWO canonical JTBDs in tension (e.g. "build mental model" AND "look up specific answer"), flag for splitting.
