CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

readable-doc-spike

Use when formatting a full engineering spike, PRD, or design-of-record doc for review, when the reader wants the complete team-standard shape (metadata header, TLDR, background, spike goals, architecture diagrams, per-goal investigation, options with a recommendation, considered-but-rejected, database and GraphQL and query changes, migration, cross-project dependencies, testing, effort, phasing, feature-flag strategy, risks, open questions, and a verification appendix). Clean team style, no emoji or tag overload. For a short summary of a spike use readable-doc; for the content use write-spike.

68

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Readable Doc (spike / big)

You are a staff engineer laying out a full spike the way this team expects to read it. The reader wants the complete decision-of-record: the recommendation up front, the investigation that backs it, the technical deltas, and every open item and dependency. You make it scannable without dropping rigour.

Core principle: completeness with a readable spine. Decision first, evidence reachable but collapsed, every claim grounded.

[!IMPORTANT] This is the formatting layer for a FULL spike. write-spike produces the content; this skill shapes it into the team-standard structure. For a short reviewer digest, use readable-doc.

When to Use

  • A bigger initiative spike / PRD / design-of-record that needs the full team shape.
  • /devflow:readable-doc-spike <path> on a full spike doc.
  • NOT for a quick summary (use readable-doc) or a short plan.

Running as a command: /devflow:readable-doc-spike [path]

$ARGUMENTS is the target path.

  1. Resolve the target (path arg, else the full spike most recently produced/discussed). State the path before writing.
  2. Read the whole doc, map its content onto the Section skeleton below.
  3. Render the two diagrams via render-diagram (base how-it-works + colour-coded current-vs-options), grouped in Architecture Overview. Reuse current PNGs if present.
  4. Rewrite IN PLACE in the skeleton + team style. Preserve facts and the author's voice; change structure and formatting.
  5. Self-check: no <u> / no em-dashes / no image "title" attr / no GFM alert inside <details>; frontmatter (if any) still parses; ticket numbers are not scattered through the prose (they live in the metadata header + References).
  6. Hand back the link: PLANNOTATOR_REMOTE=1 PLANNOTATOR_PORT=<port> plannotator annotate <path> in the background, print the http://localhost:<port> URL. Apply annotations and repeat.

Section skeleton (team-standard order)

  1. Metadata header (top callout): ticket, epic, blocks-chain, author, date, status, sources. This is where provenance and links live, keeping the prose clean.
  2. TLDR — decision-first, plain language: what/how/why-this-shape/biggest risk/what needs the team.
  3. Summary — a short paragraph expanding the TLDR.
  4. Background & Context — surfaces the counter/feature touches, plus mandatory design constraints from the discussion.
  5. Spike Goals — enumerated. Tag each Investigation subsection back to its goal ("(Goal 3)").
  6. Architecture Overview — the two diagrams + a few lines of prose. All diagrams live here.
  7. Investigation Results — one subsection per goal, the heavy detail. Each ends with a bold Recommendation / Verdict line. Push the deepest evidence into <details> so mid-document does not become a wall.
  8. Options + recommendation — an options table (Option / description / pros / cons / effort) with an explicit Recommendation, and a considered-but-rejected / alternative-assessed section stating why each was dropped.
  9. Technical changesDatabase / schema changes, GraphQL changes, query changes (tables of fields/columns), each when applicable.
  10. Migration — approach favouring additive / non-blocking / zero-downtime, with rollback.
  11. Cross-project dependencies + Questions for other teams (sign-offs needed).
  12. Testing strategy — per layer.
  13. Effort estimates — S/M/L per area.
  14. Phasing + feature-flag strategy — phasing ONLY when the work genuinely needs multiple phases (most spikes do not); the flag strategy whenever it ships behind a flag.
  15. Risks — table (likelihood / impact / mitigation); emphasise the still-open ones.
  16. Open Questions — the genuinely unresolved items.
  17. Appendix: Investigation Log (the verification ledger: claims grounded in code / origin-main / production, with sample sizes and "directional, not exact" caveats) + References.

Drop a section only if the spike genuinely has nothing for it.

Style (clean team style)

  • Bold the operative phrase; code for identifiers/paths; status circles 🟢🟠🔴❓ as light scan aids in bullets and table cells. Small-caps (textstyle.py --smallcaps) sparingly for a verdict word (ʀᴇᴄᴏᴍᴍᴇɴᴅᴇᴅ / ʀᴇᴊᴇᴄᴛᴇᴅ); underline for at most one key phrase.
  • No emoji density, no wall of tags, no table-for-everything. Tables carry comparisons; prose carries reasoning.
  • Narrative-first, cut buried citations (team feedback 2026-07-16): ticket numbers / linking data go in the metadata header + References, not scattered through the prose.
  • Collapse deep evidence into <details> so the default read is decision → diagrams → recommendation.
  • No em-dashes.

Plannotator-safe formatting (verified 2026-07-14)

Same matrix as readable-doc. Key gotchas: images are plain ![alt](path) with no title attribute (a title breaks them; <img>/self-link/in-<details> lose zoom or break); GFM alerts render top-level only (break inside <details> → use > 🔴 risk: ... there); tables render fine anywhere; <u>/<span style>/text-colour are stripped, so underline/small-caps only via textstyle.py. Treat any new trick as a claim to probe first (verify-first).

Common Mistakes

MistakeFix
No recommendation up frontDecision-of-record in the TLDR + a Recommendation on the options.
Investigation Results as one long wallPer-goal subsections, each ending in a Verdict; collapse deep evidence.
Diagrams scattered or in <details>Group both in Architecture Overview, top-level (they lose zoom in <details>).
Claims not groundedInvestigation Log appendix: verified against code/prod, with sample sizes + caveats.
Phasing added by defaultOnly when genuinely multi-phase.
Ticket numbers through the proseMetadata header + References only.
Emoji / tag / table overloadClean team style; bold + light status circles.
Confusing this with the summaryThis is the FULL doc; readable-doc is the short digest.
Repository
AndreJorgeLopes/devflow
Last updated
First committed

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.