doc-coauthoring
Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.
What this skill does
# Doc Co-Authoring Workflow This skill provides a structured workflow for guiding users through collaborative document creation. Act as an active guide, walking users through three stages: Context Gathering, Refinement & Structure, and Reader Testing. ## When to Offer This Workflow **Trigger conditions:** - User mentions writing documentation: "write a doc", "draft a proposal", "create a spec", "write up" - User mentions specific doc types: "PRD", "design doc", "decision doc", "RFC" - User seems to be starting a substantial writing task **Initial offer:** Offer the user a structured workflow for co-authoring the document. Explain the three stages: 1. **Context Gathering**: User provides all relevant context while you ask clarifying questions 2. **Refinement & Structure**: Iteratively build each section through brainstorming and editing 3. **Reader Testing**: Test the doc with a fresh session (no context) to catch blind spots before others read it Ask if they want to try this workflow or prefer to work freeform. If user declines, work freeform. If user accepts, proceed to Stage 1. ## Stage 1: Context Gathering **Goal:** Close the gap between what the user knows and what you know, enabling smart guidance later. ### Initial Questions Start by asking the user for meta-context about the document: 1. What type of document is this? (e.g., technical spec, decision doc, proposal) 2. Who's the primary audience? 3. What's the desired impact when someone reads this? 4. Is there a template or specific format to follow? 5. Any other constraints or context to know? Inform them they can answer in shorthand or dump information however works best for them. **If user provides a template or mentions a doc type:** - Ask if they have a template document to share - If they provide a link to a shared document, use available tools to fetch it - If they provide a file, read it **If user mentions editing an existing shared document:** - Use available tools to read the current state - Check for images without alt-text - If images exist without alt-text, explain that AI readers won't be able to interpret them. Ask if they want alt-text generated. ### Info Dumping Once initial questions are answered, encourage the user to dump all the context they have. Request information such as: - Background on the project/problem - Related team discussions or shared documents - Why alternative solutions aren't being used - Organizational context (team dynamics, past incidents, politics) - Timeline pressures or constraints - Technical architecture or dependencies - Stakeholder concerns Advise them not to worry about organizing it - just get it all out. Offer multiple ways to provide context: - Info dump stream-of-consciousness - Point to team channels or threads to read - Link to shared documents If tools are available for fetching external content (web search, URL fetcher, etc.), mention that these can be used to pull in context directly. Otherwise, ask the user to paste the relevant content. Inform them clarifying questions will be asked once they've done their initial dump. **During context gathering:** - If user mentions team channels or shared documents: - If relevant tools are available: Inform them the content will be read now, then fetch it - If no tools available: Ask them to paste the relevant content directly - If user mentions entities/projects that are unknown: - Ask if available tools should be used to search for more context - Wait for user confirmation before searching - As user provides context, track what's being learned and what's still unclear **Asking clarifying questions:** When user signals they've done their initial dump (or after substantial context provided), ask clarifying questions to ensure understanding: Generate 5-10 numbered questions based on gaps in the context. Inform them they can use shorthand to answer (e.g., "1: yes, 2: see #channel, 3: no because backwards compat"), link to more docs, or just keep info-dumping. Whatever's most efficient for them. **Exit condition:** Sufficient context has been gathered when questions show understanding - when edge cases and trade-offs can be asked about without needing basics explained. **Transition:** Ask if there's any more context they want to provide at this stage, or if it's time to move on to drafting the document. If user wants to add more, let them. When ready, proceed to Stage 2. ## Stage 2: Refinement & Structure **Goal:** Build the document section by section through brainstorming, curation, and iterative refinement. **Instructions to user:** Explain that the document will be built section by section. For each section: 1. Clarifying questions will be asked about what to include 2. 5-20 options will be brainstormed 3. User will indicate what to keep/remove/combine 4. The section will be drafted 5. It will be refined through surgical edits Start with whichever section has the most unknowns (usually the core decision/proposal), then work through the rest. **Section ordering:** If the document structure is clear: Ask which section they'd like to start with. Suggest starting with whichever section has the most unknowns. For decision docs, that's usually the core proposal. For specs, it's typically the technical approach. Summary sections are best left for last. If user doesn't know what sections they need: Based on the type of document and template, suggest 3-5 sections appropriate for the doc type. Ask if this structure works, or if they want to adjust it. **Once structure is agreed:** Create the initial document structure with placeholder text for all sections. If the user wants a Word document, use the `word-documents` skill to create a .docx file with section headers and placeholder text. Otherwise, draft the structure directly in the conversation. **For each section:** ### Step 1: Clarifying Questions Announce work will begin on the [SECTION NAME] section. Ask 5-10 clarifying questions about what should be included: Generate 5-10 specific questions based on context and section purpose. Inform them they can answer in shorthand or just indicate what's important to cover. ### Step 2: Brainstorming For the [SECTION NAME] section, brainstorm [5-20] things that might be included, depending on the section's complexity. Look for: - Context shared that might have been forgotten - Angles or considerations not yet mentioned Generate 5-20 numbered options based on section complexity. At the end, offer to brainstorm more if they want additional options. ### Step 3: Curation Ask which points should be kept, removed, or combined. Request brief justifications to help learn priorities for the next sections. Provide examples: - "Keep 1,4,7,9" - "Remove 3 (duplicates 1)" - "Remove 6 (audience already knows this)" - "Combine 11 and 12" **If user gives freeform feedback** (e.g., "looks good" or "I like most of it but...") instead of numbered selections, extract their preferences and proceed. Parse what they want kept/removed/changed and apply it. ### Step 4: Gap Check Based on what they've selected, ask if there's anything important missing for the [SECTION NAME] section. ### Step 5: Drafting Draft the section based on the curated points. If working with a document file, update the relevant section. If working in conversation, present the drafted section clearly. Ask them to read through it and indicate what to change. Note that being specific helps learning for the next sections. **Key instruction for user (include when drafting the first section):** Provide a note: Instead of editing the doc directly, ask them to indicate what to change. This helps learning of their style for future sections. For example: "Remove the X bullet - already covered by Y" or "Make the third paragraph more concise". ### Step 6: Iterative Refinement As user provides feedback: - Make targeted edits (never reprint the whole doc unless requested) - After each edit, confirm completio
Related in Writing & Docs
jax-development
IncludedUse this skill when the user is writing, debugging, profiling, refactoring, reviewing, benchmarking, parallelising, exporting, or explaining JAX code, or when they mention JAX, jax.numpy, jit, grad, value_and_grad, vmap, scan, lax, random keys, pytrees, jax.Array, sharding, Mesh, PartitionSpec, NamedSharding, pmap, shard_map, Pallas, XLA, StableHLO, checkify, profiler, or the JAX repo. It helps turn NumPy or PyTorch-style code into pure functional JAX, fix tracer/control-flow/shape/PRNG bugs, remove recompiles and host-device syncs, choose transforms and sharding strategies, inspect jaxpr/lowering/IR, and benchmark compiled code correctly.
nature-article-writer
IncludedDrafts, rewrites, diagnostically critiques, and style-calibrates primary research manuscripts for Nature and Nature Portfolio journals. Use when the user wants a Nature-style title, summary paragraph or abstract, introduction, results, discussion, methods, figure legends, presubmission enquiry, cover letter, reviewer response, or when a scientific draft sounds generic, jargon-heavy, structurally weak, or AI-ish and needs precise, broad-reader-friendly prose without inventing data, analyses, or references. Best for primary research articles and letters rather than reviews or press releases unless explicitly adapting one.
deckrd
IncludedDocument-driven framework that derives requirements, specifications, implementation plans, and executable tasks from goals through structured AI dialogue. Use when user says "write requirements", "create spec", "plan implementation", "derive tasks", "structure this feature", "break down into tasks", or "document this module". Also use for reverse engineering existing code into docs (/deckrd rev). Do NOT use for direct code writing — use /deckrd-coder after tasks are generated. Do NOT use when the user only wants to run or fix existing code without planning.
clinical-decision-support
IncludedGenerate professional clinical decision support (CDS) documents for pharmaceutical and clinical research settings, including patient cohort analyses (biomarker-stratified with outcomes) and treatment recommendation reports (evidence-based guidelines with decision algorithms). Supports GRADE evidence grading, statistical analysis (hazard ratios, survival curves, waterfall plots), biomarker integration, and regulatory compliance. Outputs publication-ready LaTeX/PDF format optimized for drug development, clinical research, and evidence synthesis.
handling-sf-data
IncludedSalesforce data operations with 130-point scoring. Use this skill to create, update, delete, bulk import/export, generate test data, and clean up org records using sf CLI and anonymous Apex. TRIGGER when: user creates test data, performs bulk import/export, uses sf data CLI commands, needs data factory patterns for Apex tests, or needs to seed/clean records in a Salesforce org. DO NOT TRIGGER when: SOQL query writing only (use querying-soql), Apex test execution (use running-apex-tests), or metadata deployment (use deploying-metadata).
accelint-ac-to-playwright
IncludedConvert and validate acceptance criteria for Playwright test automation. Use when user asks to (1) review/evaluate/check if AC are ready for automation, (2) assess if AC can be converted as-is, (3) validate AC quality for Playwright, (4) turn AC into tests, (5) generate tests from acceptance criteria, (6) convert .md bullets or .feature Gherkin files to Playwright specs, (7) create test automation from requirements. Handles both bullet-style markdown and Gherkin syntax with JSON test plan generation and validation.