doc-author

name

doc-author

description

Author or revise a human-consumed prose document (README, STABILITY, docs under docs/ and the mdBook under big-code-analysis-book/src/): clarify audience and purpose, outline, draft against docs/conventions/documentation.md, then revise in multiple focused passes (structure, completeness, line edit, proofread) that hunt the three doc failure modes (missing external links, insufficient background, hollow sounds-smart sentences), get an independent fresh-context review, and verify markdown lint. Includes a review mode that critiques an existing doc without editing it. Use when asked to write, revise, tighten, or de-slop a documentation or Markdown prose file. Not for code, diffs, doc comments, changelog entries, or lessons-learned (those have their own workflows).

Doc-author skill

A workflow for writing or revising a human-consumed prose document (README.md, STABILITY.md, anything under docs/, and the mdBook source under big-code-analysis-book/src/).

docs/conventions/documentation.md is the source of truth; this skill is an editor helper that applies those rules. If the skill and the convention disagree, the convention wins. For lessons-learned entries use the lessons-learned skill; for changelog entries follow the ## Changelog section of docs/conventions/documentation.md (plus the stability-contract rules in AGENTS.md). This skill does neither.

Arguments

A target doc path and an optional mode hint: write, revise, or review. If no mode is given, infer it from whether the path exists and from the verb the user used (a missing path means write; "review" or "critique" means review; otherwise revise).

Workflow

Step 1: Load the rules

Read the ## Prose documents block of docs/conventions/documentation.md, plus its Markdown, No stale counts, and Audience separation sections. Then read .rumdl.toml. The convention is self-contained, so no runtime fetch is needed; the skill works offline.

Step 2: Clarify audience and purpose

State, in one or two sentences, who the reader is, the single question the doc answers, and the background it assumes.

For a new doc, apply the "Whether a doc should exist" table first. If the topic already has a home, extend that doc rather than adding a file. If the target is a point-in-time artifact (a review rebuttal, a status snapshot, an email draft), recommend a commit message or archive home and stop.

If the target is generated (it carries a "generated, do not edit" banner or a generator reference, like the man pages rendered by cargo xtask), stop and report instead of editing. Fix the generator, not the output.

Step 3: Outline

Draft a heading outline: an orientation opening (what this is, who it is for, where it fits), then content ordered by decreasing reader relevance. Drop any heading that would be empty or that restates the title. Show the outline before drafting anything long.

Step 4: Draft

Write present-tense, active-voice prose. As you write: link every external tool, standard, or paper on first mention; state assumed background before relying on it. Use approximate language for scale, never invented counts.

Step 5: Revise in passes (self-edit)

Drafting and editing are separate acts; do not polish while drafting. This is where most of the quality comes from. Revise in discrete passes, one objective each, and re-read the saved file from disk at the start of every pass rather than editing from memory: your context is biased toward what you meant to write, and the file on disk is what the reader gets.

In each pass, first list the problems you find with line numbers, then fix them. Separating detection from fixing finds more than editing inline as you read.

1. Structure pass. Does the opening orient the reader? Is content ordered by reader relevance? Cut or merge empty and title-restating sections.
2. Completeness pass. Every external tool, standard, or paper is linked on first mention; assumed background is stated before it is relied on.
3. Line-edit pass. Hunt the bans listed under "Plain, honest sentences" in the convention (em dashes, superlatives, marketing adjectives, AI sentence structures, hedging, noun stacks), plus non-parallel lists and wrong-term usage (update vs. upgrade). Prefer cutting over rephrasing. Length targets are suggestions, not failures.
4. Proofread pass. Run the self-review checklist in docs/conventions/documentation.md.

Repeat any pass whose fixes were substantial. Stop when a full re-read turns up no new findings: convergence ends the loop, not a fixed count. If the passes stop converging, report what remains rather than looping, and never claim a pass you did not actually perform.

Step 6: Independent review (fresh eyes)

Self-review in the same context rubber-stamps your own choices, so end with a fresh-context critique, scaled to the size of the change:

• Preferred: dispatch a subagent (via the Agent tool, the pattern the review skill uses for code) to review the saved file with no knowledge of how it was written. Give it the ## Prose documents rules and ask for a findings list (file and line, the rule broken, a concrete rewrite) and no edits.
• Fallback (no subagent available): run this skill again in review mode, in a fresh turn, against the saved file.

Apply the findings through the Step 5 fix discipline, then re-run the reviewer once to confirm it comes back clean.

Step 7: Verify lint

Ensure rumdl is present (install it if make markdown-lint reports the tool is missing), then rm -rf .rumdl_cache && make markdown-lint. Fix any findings. Confirm internal links and anchors resolve and external links are well-formed URLs.

Step 8: Report and stop

Do NOT commit. Summarize the passes you ran, the independent-review findings, the external links added, the sentences cut, and the structural moves. The user decides commit timing.

Review mode

When the mode is review, run steps 1, 2, and 5 as a critique only: produce a findings list with file and line references and concrete rewrites, and make no edits unless the user then asks. This mode is also the fallback reviewer for Step 6 when no subagent is available. It is the most effective path for de-slopping an existing doc.

Guardrails

• The convention wins. docs/conventions/documentation.md is the source of truth. Propose convention edits rather than inventing skill-only rules.
• No automatic commits. Edit or leave the file; the user commits.
• Passes are real, not theater. Re-read the file from disk on each pass, list findings before fixing, and stop on convergence. Never announce a pass you did not perform or pad to hit a number.
• Prose only. Never edit code doc comments, source comments, released changelog history, or lessons-learned entries. Editing a code block inside a prose doc is fine; editing the source it came from is not. Do not edit generated docs (man pages, the rendered mdBook under big-code-analysis-book/book/). Stay within this repo.
• No invented facts. Never fabricate counts, benchmarks, versions, or citations. If a canonical URL is unknown, leave a TODO(link) marker rather than guessing.
• Don't fight the linter. Respect .rumdl.toml (the 120 ceiling, the allowed HTML set, the disabled rules). Keep prose wrapped near 100.
• De-slop cuts words, not facts. If a hollow sentence carries a caveat, keep the caveat in plain words.
• Lint from a clean cache. Always rm -rf .rumdl_cache before trusting make markdown-lint.