document

name	document
description	End-to-end documentation orchestrator: chains all four inki phases (research, write, review, submit) for a single subject. Gates between each phase by default; --non-interactive chains without pauses and runs a review-fix loop. The simplest way to document a subject from scratch.
argument-hint	[--non-interactive] [--max-review-fix-rounds <N>] <subject: keywords | Strapi PR (url/number) | Notion URL | Linear issue | PDF path | pasted text>
user-invocable	true

/inki:document: document a subject end to end

/inki:document is the one-shot entry point to the whole inki workflow. Given a subject to document, it runs the four families in order (research → write → review → submit), pausing for your approval between each phase so you stay in control. Pass --non-interactive (or --no-questions-asked, same effect) to chain all four without stopping; in that mode the review phase also runs a fix loop (review → fix → re-review) until the draft is clean or --max-review-fix-rounds is reached (defaults to 3).

It is a thin orchestrator: each phase is delegated to its existing top-level skill (/inki:research, /inki:write, /inki:review, /inki:submit). This skill adds no review logic of its own; it resolves the subject, sequences the phases, and manages the gates. The review fix loop is owned by /inki:review; this skill just invokes it with --fix and a round cap.

Step 0: Parse arguments

If $ARGUMENTS contains --help or -h, print usage and stop, per ../../references/help.md. Do not run the workflow.

Otherwise, from $ARGUMENTS, detect these flags anywhere in the list, then remove them:

• --non-interactive (canonical), aliases --auto-approve, --auto, --yes, -y, --no-questions-asked (all equivalent) → set AUTO=true. Chains all phases without pausing AND approves the review-fix loop in Step 4 (see below).
• --max-review-fix-rounds <N> (canonical), alias --fix-rounds <N> (both equivalent) → set MAX_FIX_ROUNDS=<N>. Caps how many review→fix→re-review iterations the review phase (Step 4) runs; this skill passes the value through to /inki:review. Defaults to 3 if not given.
• --no-log, --log-dir <path>, --short-log → logging flags, handled per ../../references/logging.md.

What remains is the subject. If no subject remains, ask the user what they want to document and stop.

Step 0b: Set up logging

Unless --no-log was passed, set up the run log by following ../../references/logging.md: resolve the base directory, create the run directory YYYY-MM-DD-<slug> from SUBJECT_LABEL (resolved in Step 1), and write each phase's report into its subdirectory as that phase completes. If --no-log was passed, state once that nothing will be persisted. Logging is best-effort and never aborts the run.

Step 1: Resolve the subject to a brief

Resolve the subject by following ../../references/subject-resolver.md. It accepts keywords, a Strapi PR (URL, owner/repo number, a bare number, or prose naming a PR and repo), a Notion page URL, a Linear issue, a PDF (path or URL), a local text/markdown file, or pasted content.

The resolver returns:

• BRIEF: a normalized brief (title + summary + key facts/links) for the research and write phases.
• SUBJECT_LABEL: a short label for headers.
• SOURCE_KIND: the detected source type.
• CLEANUP: a command to run when the workflow finishes (temp-file removal); may be empty.

The resolver may stop the workflow before returning a brief, in which case relay its message and end:

• A bare PR number with no repo: the resolver asks which repo the PR belongs to. Stop until the user answers, then re-run.
• A strapi/documentation PR: that is a documentation PR, not a subject to document. The resolver tells the user to run /inki:review <PR> instead. Stop; do not continue into research.
• A PR on a repo that is not documented on docs.strapi.io (only strapi/strapi and strapi/cloud are): the resolver reports there is nothing to document. Stop.

If resolution otherwise fails (e.g. a Notion/Linear MCP is unavailable and no fallback content is provided), report why and stop.

Step 2: Phase 1, Research

Invoke /inki:research on the subject (pass the brief's topic/keywords, or the original subject for PR/feature inputs).

Gate on the result before continuing:

• If research concludes the subject is already documented (an existing page covers it): STOP. Report the existing page path(s) from the research output and end the workflow. Do not chain into write. The user decides what to do next (they can run /inki:review <path> themselves to update the existing page). This stop happens even in --non-interactive mode: documenting a duplicate is never the intended outcome.
• Otherwise: the research output enriches the brief (gaps, related pages, routing). Carry the enriched brief forward.

Phase gate (skipped when AUTO=true): show the research summary and ask whether to proceed to writing. On no, stop.

Step 3: Phase 2, Write

Invoke /inki:write with the enriched brief. In interactive mode /inki:write already gates on outline approval before drafting; let it. In AUTO=true mode, pass --non-interactive through so outline and draft are produced without an inner pause.

The output is a drafted page (and its outline file).

Phase gate (skipped when AUTO=true): show the draft path and ask whether to proceed to review. On no, stop (the draft is kept on disk for the user).

Step 4: Phase 3, Review (with a fix loop)

This phase reviews the fresh draft and iteratively fixes it until it is clean or a round cap is hit. Because the draft was just generated by this same workflow (not pre-existing content a human is protecting), /inki:document is allowed to apply fixes here: that is the point of an end-to-end run.

The fix loop itself lives in /inki:review (the review→fix→re-review iteration and its --max-review-fix-rounds cap are review's own behavior). /inki:document does NOT re-implement it; it delegates by invoking /inki:review with the right flags and passing the round cap through.

MAX_FIX_ROUNDS here defaults to 3 (override with --max-review-fix-rounds <N>, alias --fix-rounds <N>). /inki:document passes this value to /inki:review as its cap.

Behaviour depends on AUTO:

• AUTO=true (--non-interactive): invoke

  /inki:review --non-interactive --fix --max-review-fix-rounds <MAX_FIX_ROUNDS> <draft>
  

  /inki:review runs the loop (apply every actionable fix → re-review → repeat up to the cap) without prompting. --non-interactive is what suppresses review's per-round confirmation: that is safe here because the draft was generated within this same run, not human-authored.

• AUTO=false (default): first invoke a single read-only /inki:review <draft> (no --fix) and show the report. Then ask whether to (a) run the fix loop, (b) proceed to submit as-is, or (c) stop. On (a), invoke /inki:review --fix --max-review-fix-rounds <MAX_FIX_ROUNDS> <draft> (without --non-interactive, so review shows each round's diff and confirms before writing).

Read the ROUNDS_RUN and final open-findings count back from /inki:review's report for the summary. If the cap was reached with findings still open, do NOT loop further here: /inki:review already stopped at the cap and reported the remainder. Carry those into the summary and (in interactive mode) tell the user; they decide whether to submit anyway or iterate manually.

Phase gate (skipped when AUTO=true): after the loop, show the final review state and ask whether to proceed to submit. On no, stop (the draft and the review report are kept).

Step 5: Phase 4, Submit

Invoke /inki:submit to branch (if on main), commit, push, and open the PR. In AUTO=true mode, pass --non-interactive through.

/inki:submit retains its own safety behavior, which --non-interactive does NOT override. Concretely, even in auto mode:

• Deployment-infrastructure paths are never touched in auto mode. .github/workflows/ and docusaurus.config.js always require explicit human confirmation; /inki:document never writes them and never auto-approves a commit that includes them. (sidebars.js is NOT in this set: adding a new page legitimately requires a navigation entry, so --non-interactive may edit it. It stays visible in the diff and in the draft PR for human review.)
• Branch discipline holds. Commits land on a properly prefixed feature branch (cms/, cloud/, repo/), never directly on main or next.
• git-rules.md governs the PR. The commit message and PR title/description follow git-rules.md (imperative title, flat "This PR…" description, no headings, no test plan).
• The PR opens as a draft for human review; auto mode does not merge it.

If the original subject was a Linear issue, mention the issue ID in the PR body via the brief, but do NOT write Fixes <ID>: Linear issues are not GitHub issues and that syntax would not close anything.

Step 6: Cleanup

Run the CLEANUP command returned by the subject resolver, even if the workflow stopped early at a gate. If CLEANUP is empty, there is nothing to do.

Step 7: Summary

End with a one-block summary:

Documented: <SUBJECT_LABEL>
- Research:  <already-documented at <path> | gaps found, proceeded>
- Write:     <draft path>
- Review:    <ROUNDS_RUN round(s); N issues fixed, M still open by severity>
- Submit:    <branch> · <commit SHA> · <PR URL>
- Log:       <run directory path, or "disabled (--no-log)">

If the fix loop hit MAX_FIX_ROUNDS with findings still open, say so explicitly here.

In a workflow stopped at a gate, show the summary up to the phase reached and state where it stopped.

Rules

• This skill never duplicates phase logic. It only resolves the subject, sequences phases, gates, and summarizes. The review fix loop is not implemented here: it belongs to /inki:review (Step 4 just invokes review with --fix and the round cap, and reads back the result). Each phase is run by invoking its top-level skill (/inki:research, /inki:write, /inki:review, /inki:submit), never by re-implementing that phase's steps inline. In particular, the submit phase MUST go through /inki:submit (which itself invokes /inki:branch / /inki:commit / /inki:push / /inki:pr); do NOT branch, commit, push, or open the PR with raw git / gh commands here, as that drops behavior the sub-skills own (e.g. the /inki:pr Vercel preview link). Read-only git/gh inspection is fine; mutating git/gh by hand in place of a phase skill is a defect.
• Default is gated: pause between every phase (research→write, write→review, review→submit). --non-interactive (canonical), aliases --auto-approve, --auto, --yes, -y, --no-questions-asked (all equivalent) removes the pauses but never the "already documented → stop" guard, the protected-path guard, or the branch discipline.
• --non-interactive approves the review fix loop too: it makes /inki:document pass --non-interactive to /inki:review, so review applies fixes without confirming each round. This is safe here only because the draft was generated within this same run. A bare /inki:review --fix on existing human-authored content still shows each round's diff and confirms first (review's human-content guard); --fix is always required for review to write anything at all.
• The fix loop runs at most MAX_FIX_ROUNDS times (default 3 here, --max-review-fix-rounds <N> / --fix-rounds <N> to change). The loop itself is enforced by /inki:review, which never loops unbounded; remaining findings are reported, not forced.
• If any phase fails, stop. Do not skip a phase.
• The submit phase's safety guards are not optional and --non-interactive does not lift them: protected paths stay untouched, commits stay on a prefixed feature branch (never main/next), the PR follows git-rules.md and opens as a draft. See Step 5 for the explicit list.

Examples

Document a topic from keywords, gating between each phase:

/inki:document "MCP server configuration"

Document from a Notion spec, fully automatic up to the draft PR (review-fix loop runs up to 3 rounds):

/inki:document --non-interactive https://www.notion.so/strapi/Realtime-API-spec-abc123

Fully automatic, allowing up to 5 review-fix rounds for a tricky page:

/inki:document --non-interactive --max-review-fix-rounds 5 "Document Service API filters"

Document from a Linear issue:

/inki:document DOC-412

Document a code PR from strapi/strapi (CMS) or strapi/cloud (Cloud), any of these forms work:

/inki:document https://github.com/strapi/strapi/pull/26597
/inki:document strapi/cloud 1234
/inki:document PR 26597 from strapi/strapi

A bare PR number prompts for the repo first:

/inki:document 26597

A strapi/documentation PR is redirected to review (it is not a subject to document):

/inki:document https://github.com/strapi/documentation/pull/3234
→ "That is a documentation PR. Run /inki:review https://github.com/strapi/documentation/pull/3234 instead."

A PR on a repo not published to docs.strapi.io (e.g. strapi/design-system) stops with an explanation:

/inki:document https://github.com/strapi/design-system/pull/500
→ "strapi/design-system is not documented on docs.strapi.io (only strapi/strapi and strapi/cloud are), so there is no doc to write from this PR."

Document from a PDF RFC:

/inki:document ./specs/webhooks-rfc.pdf

Document from pasted notes (paste after the command):

/inki:document We need to document the new `transfer` CLI command:
it moves data between two Strapi instances over a token-authenticated
HTTP channel. Flags: --from, --to, --force...