docs-writer skill instructions workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Write, review, and edit documentation files with consistent structure, tone, and technical accuracy. Use when creating docs, reviewing markdown files, writing READMEs, updating /docs directories, or when user says "write documentation", "review this doc", "improve this README", "create a guide", or "edit markdown". Do NOT use for code comments, inline JSDoc, or API reference generation and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
docs-writer
description
docs-writer skill instructions workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Write, review, and edit documentation files with consistent structure, tone, and technical accuracy. Use when creating docs, reviewing markdown files, writing READMEs, updating /docs directories, or when user says "write documentation", "review this doc", "improve this README", "create a guide", or "edit markdown". Do NOT use for code comments, inline JSDoc, or API reference generation and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
This public intake copy packages packages/skills-catalog/skills/(development)/docs-writer from https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.
Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.
This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.
docs-writer skill instructions As an expert technical writer and editor, your goal is to produce and refine documentation that is accurate, clear, consistent, and easy for users to understand. You must adhere to the documentation contribution process outlined in CONTRIBUTING.md.
When to Use This Skill
Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.
Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Write, review, and edit documentation files with consistent structure, tone, and technical accuracy. Use when creating docs, reviewing markdown files, writing READMEs, updating /docs directories, or when user says....
Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.
Operating Table
Situation
Start here
Why it matters
First-time use
metadata.json
Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path through the external_source block before touching the copied workflow
Provenance review
ORIGIN.md
Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source
Workflow execution
references/style-guide.md
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution
Supporting context
references/style-guide.md
Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package
Handoff decision
## Related Skills
Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts
Workflow
This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.
Clarify the request: Fully understand the user's documentation request. Identify the core feature, command, or concept that needs work.
Differentiate the task: Determine if the request is primarily for writing new content or editing existing content. If the request is ambiguous (e.g., "fix the docs"), ask the user for clarification.
Formulate a plan: Create a clear, step-by-step plan for the required changes.
Read the code: Thoroughly examine the relevant codebase, primarily within the packages/ directory, to ensure your work is backed by the implementation and to identify any gaps.
Identify files: Locate the specific documentation files in the docs/ directory that need to be modified. Always read the latest version of a file before you begin work.
Check for connections: Consider related documentation. If you change a command's behavior, check for other pages that reference it. If you add a new page, check if docs/sidebar.json needs to be updated. Make sure all links are up to date.
Follow the style guide: Adhere to the rules in references/style-guide.md. Read this file to understand the project's documentation standards.
Imported Workflow Notes
Imported: Step 1: Understand the goal and create a plan
Clarify the request: Fully understand the user's documentation request. Identify the core feature, command, or concept that needs work.
Differentiate the task: Determine if the request is primarily for writing new content or editing existing content. If the request is ambiguous (e.g., "fix the docs"), ask the user for clarification.
Formulate a plan: Create a clear, step-by-step plan for the required changes.
Imported: Step 2: Investigate and gather information
Read the code: Thoroughly examine the relevant codebase, primarily within the packages/ directory, to ensure your work is backed by the implementation and to identify any gaps.
Identify files: Locate the specific documentation files in the docs/ directory that need to be modified. Always read the latest version of a file before you begin work.
Check for connections: Consider related documentation. If you change a command's behavior, check for other pages that reference it. If you add a new page, check if docs/sidebar.json needs to be updated. Make sure all links are up to date.
Imported: Step 3: Write or edit the documentation
Follow the style guide: Adhere to the rules in references/style-guide.md. Read this file to understand the project's documentation standards.
Ensure the new documentation accurately reflects the features in the code.
Use replace and write_file: Use file system tools to apply your planned changes. For small edits, replace is preferred. For new files or large rewrites, write_file is more appropriate.
Sub-step: Editing existing documentation (as clarified in Step 1)
Gaps: Identify areas where the documentation is incomplete or no longer reflects existing code.
Tone: Ensure the tone is active and engaging, not passive.
Clarity: Correct awkward wording, spelling, and grammar. Rephrase sentences to make them easier for users to understand.
Consistency: Check for consistent terminology and style across all edited documents.
Imported: Step 4: Verify and finalize
Review your work: After making changes, re-read the files to ensure the documentation is well-formatted, and the content is correct based on existing code.
Link verification: Verify the validity of all links in the new content. Verify the validity of existing links leading to the page with the new content or deleted content.
Offer to run npm format: Once all changes are complete, offer to run the project's formatting script to ensure consistency by proposing the command: npm run format
Examples
Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly
Use @docs-writer to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.
Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review
Review @docs-writer against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.
Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution
Use @docs-writer for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.
Example 4: Build a reviewer packet
Review @docs-writer using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.
Best Practices
Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.
Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.
Troubleshooting
Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically
Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in packages/skills-catalog/skills/(development)/docs-writer, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.
Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review
Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.
Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization
Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.
Related Skills
@accessibility - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@ai-cold-outreach - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@ai-pricing - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@ai-sdr - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
Additional Resources
Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.
Resource family
What it gives the reviewer
Example path
references
copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream
references/style-guide.md
examples
worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream
examples/n/a
scripts
upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation
scripts/n/a
agents
routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package
agents/n/a
assets
supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package
