doc-coauthoring
A structured workflow for co-authoring high-signal docs (PRD, RFC, design docs, proposals, decision records). Use when the user needs to turn messy context into a readable artifact with clear goals, tradeoffs, and next steps. Emphasizes context capture, outline-first drafting, and context-free reader testing to catch blind spots.
Оригинален текст · няма потвърден превод на българскиПърво прочетете инструкцията.
Файлът се зарежда от посочения източник само по ваше действие. Можете да го прочетете тук, да го копирате или да го запазите като .md.
GitHub хранилище- Звезди на репото
- 5227
- Лиценз
- Apache-2.0
- Последна проверка на записа
- 21.09.2026 г.
Добавете в своя инструмент.
Командата отваря избора на skills от репозитория. Прочетете файла и условията на автора преди изпълнение.
npx skills add shareAI-lab/Kode-CLIСтраницата копира текст. Не инсталира и не изпълнява нищо на устройството ви.
Откъс от SKILL.md
Началото на файла на автора, без превод.
Doc Co-Authoring
Turn partial context into a clear document by following a staged workflow. Keep the user in control of decisions, and optimize for a doc that works for readers who do not share the author’s context.
Triggers
Use this workflow when the user asks to:
- write or refine documentation, proposals, RFCs, PRDs, decision docs, specs
- “summarize our discussion into a doc”
- “make this readable for others” / “share with the team”
- create a template or standard for recurring documents
If the user explicitly wants freeform writing, keep the workflow lightweight (ask fewer questions; draft faster).
The Workflow (3 stages)
Stage 1 — Context Capture (close the gap)
Goal: collect the minimum context required to write a doc that is correct, scoped, and actionable.
Ask for:
- Doc type + goal: what is this document for, and what decision/action should it unlock?
- Audience: who will read it, and what do they already know?
- Constraints: deadlines, non-goals, dependencies, security/compliance, platform limits.
- Current state: what exists today? what’s broken? what’s missing?
- Options considered: at least 1–2 alternatives and why they may/ may not work.
- Success criteria: how we know it worked (metrics, user outcomes, acceptance tests).
- Open questions: unknowns that block writing certain sections.
Output of Stage 1:
- a short “context snapshot”
- a list of open questions (ranked by importance)
- a proposed doc outline (1 screen)
Stage 2 — Outline-First Drafting (iterate by section)
Goal: draft a document in layers without losing coherence.
Rules:
- Outline before prose. Do not write full paragraphs until the outline is agreed.
- One section at a time. Draft → review → revise, then move on.
- Maintain a decision log (small bullet list) so changes are explicit.
- Keep unknowns visible: unresolved items stay in an “Open Questions / Risks” section, not hidden.
Recommended iteration loop per section:
- Write a 3–7 bullet “section intent” (what this section must answer).
- Draft the section (short, concrete).
- Ask the user for a quick pass: “What’s wrong / missing / too detailed?”
- Revise and update the decision log.
Stage 3 — Reader Testing (catch blind spots)
Goal: validate readability and completeness for a reader without the author’s context.
Method: