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.

1.60x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

90%

1.60x

Average score across 7 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Quality

Content

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a well-sequenced, actionable instruction-only workflow with clear stages, exit conditions, and verification loops. Its main weaknesses are verbosity from repetitive announce/inform narration and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure into reference files.

Suggestions

Trim repetitive narration ("Announce intention to...", "Inform them that...") and collapse the repeated artifact-vs-file branch restatements into a single shared convention to reduce token overhead.

Split the dense per-stage procedural detail (e.g., Stage 2 step-by-step and Stage 3 testing scripts) into reference files linked from a leaner SKILL.md overview to improve progressive disclosure.

Add an explicit in-stage validation checkpoint after `str_replace` edits (e.g., confirm the edit applied and the section still reads coherently before moving to the next section).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is procedural and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it is padded with repetitive narration ("Announce intention to...", "Inform them that...") and restated artifact/file branches that could be tightened; it is mostly efficient but includes unnecessary phrasing.	2 / 3
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and executable: explicit counts ("Generate 5-10 numbered questions", "brainstorm 5-20"), named tools (`create_file`, `str_replace`), copy-ready curation examples ("Keep 1,4,7,9", "Combine 11 and 12"), and a real test URL — instructs rather than describes.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Three stages are clearly sequenced with explicit exit conditions and feedback loops (Reader Testing loops back to refinement, Quality Checking after 3 iterations, near-completion re-read), providing error-recovery checkpoints for the process.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the entire 371-line workflow is inline in SKILL.md with no one-level-deep references; the per-stage detail could be split into reference files, so content that should be separate is inline despite good in-file organization.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is strong: it states concrete actions, provides an explicit "Use when / Trigger when" clause, and uses natural trigger terms users would actually say. It is concise without padding and clearly scoped to documentation co-authoring.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and multiple concrete actions: "co-authoring documentation", "transfer context", "refine content through iteration", and "verify the doc works for readers" — matching the score-3 anchor listing several specific concrete actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both "what" (a structured multi-stage co-authoring workflow) and "when" ("Use when user wants to write documentation..." and "Trigger when user mentions writing docs..."), with explicit trigger guidance.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural phrasings a user would say — "writing documentation", "proposals", "technical specs", "decision docs", "writing docs", "creating proposals", "drafting specs" — giving good coverage of common variations rather than technical jargon.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The collaborative multi-stage co-authoring niche with documentation-specific triggers is clearly distinguishable from generic file/PDF/code skills; the broad "similar structured content" clause adds minor overlap risk but not enough to drop below the distinct-trigger anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: boisenoise/skills-collections
Commit: f36337d

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.