recipe-update-doc
This Claude Code skill orchestrates the update of existing design documents (Design Docs, PRDs, or ADRs) by delegating work through specialized sub-agents. Use it when you need to revise an identified document based on review feedback, ensuring changes are clarified with users and validated through document review and consistency checks before final approval.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shinpr/claude-code-workflows /tmp/recipe-update-doc && cp -r /tmp/recipe-update-doc/dev-workflows-fullstack/skills/recipe-update-doc ~/.claude/skills/recipe-update-docSKILL.md
**Context**: Dedicated to updating existing design documents.
## Orchestrator Definition
**Core Identity**: "I am an orchestrator." (see subagents-orchestration-guide skill)
**First Action**: Register Steps 1-6 using TaskCreate before any execution.
**Execution Protocol**:
1. **Delegate all work through Agent tool** — invoke sub-agents, pass deliverable paths between them, and report results (permitted tools: see subagents-orchestration-guide "Orchestrator's Permitted Tools")
2. **Execute update flow**:
- Identify target → Clarify changes → Update document → Review → Consistency check
- **Stop at every `[Stop: ...]` marker** → Wait for user approval before proceeding
3. **Scope**: Complete when updated document receives approval
**CRITICAL**: Execute document-reviewer and all stopping points — each serves as a quality gate for document accuracy.
## Workflow Overview
```
Target document → [Stop: Confirm changes]
↓
technical-designer / technical-designer-frontend / prd-creator (update mode)
↓ (Design Doc only)
code-verifier → document-reviewer → [Stop: Review approval]
↓ (Design Doc only)
design-sync → [Stop: Final approval]
```
## Scope Boundaries
**Included in this skill**:
- Existing document identification and selection
- Change content clarification with user
- Document update with appropriate agent (update mode)
- Document review with document-reviewer
- Consistency verification with design-sync (Design Doc only)
**Out of scope** (redirect to appropriate skills):
- New requirement analysis
- Work planning or implementation
**Responsibility Boundary**: This skill completes with updated document approval.
Target document: $ARGUMENTS
## Execution Flow
### Step 1: Target Document Identification
```bash
# Check existing documents
ls docs/design/*.md docs/prd/*.md docs/adr/*.md 2>/dev/null | grep -v template
```
**Decision flow**:
| Situation | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| $ARGUMENTS specifies a path | Use specified document |
| $ARGUMENTS describes a topic | Search documents matching the topic |
| Multiple candidates found | Present options with AskUserQuestion |
| No documents found | Report and end (document creation is out of scope) |
### Step 2: Document Type and Layer Determination
Determine type from document path, then determine the layer to select the correct update agent:
| Path Pattern | Type | Update Agent | Notes |
|-------------|------|--------------|-------|
| `docs/design/*.md` | Design Doc | technical-designer or technical-designer-frontend | See layer detection below |
| `docs/prd/*.md` | PRD | prd-creator | - |
| `docs/adr/*.md` | ADR | technical-designer or technical-designer-frontend | See layer detection below |
**Layer detection** (for Design Doc and ADR):
Read the document and determine its layer from content signals:
- **Frontend** (→ technical-designer-frontend): Document title/scope mentions React, components, UI, frontend; or file contains component hierarchy, state management, UI interactions
- **Backend** (→ technical-designer): All other cases (API, data layer, business logic, infrastructure)
**ADR Update Guidance**:
- **Minor changes** (clarification, typo fix, small scope adjustment): Update the existing ADR file
- **Major changes** (decision reversal, significant scope change): Create a new ADR that supersedes the original
### Step 3: Change Content Clarification [Stop]
Use AskUserQuestion to clarify what changes are needed:
- What sections need updating
- Reason for the change (bug fix findings, spec change, review feedback, etc.)
- Expected outcome after the update
Confirm understanding of changes with user before proceeding.
### Step 4: Document Update
Invoke the update agent determined in Step 2:
```
subagent_type: [Update Agent from Step 2]
description: "Update [Type from Step 2]"
prompt: |
Operation Mode: update
Existing Document: [path from Step 1]
## Changes Required
[Changes clarified in Step 3]
Update the document to reflect the specified changes.
Add change history entry.
```
### Step 5: Document Review [Stop]
**For Design Doc updates only**: Before document-reviewer, invoke code-verifier:
```
subagent_type: code-verifier
description: "Verify updated Design Doc"
prompt: |
doc_type: design-doc
document_path: [path from Step 1]
Verify the updated Design Doc against current codebase.
Verification focus: Pay special attention to literal identifier referential
integrity in the updated sections (paths, endpoints, type names, config keys).
```
**Store output as**: `$CODE_VERIFICATION_OUTPUT`
Invoke document-reviewer:
```
subagent_type: document-reviewer
description: "Review updated document"
prompt: |
Review the following updated document.
doc_type: [Design Doc / PRD / ADR]
target: [path from Step 1]
mode: standard
code_verification: $CODE_VERIFICATION_OUTPUT (Design Doc only, omit for PRD/ADR)
Focus on:
- Consistency of updated sections with rest of document
- No contradictions introduced by changes
- Completeness of change history
```
**Store output as**: `$STEP_5_OUTPUT`
**On review result**:
- Approved → Proceed to Step 6
- Needs revision → Return to Step 4 with the following prompt (max 2 iterations):
```
subagent_type: [Update Agent from Step 2]
description: "Revise [Type from Step 2]"
prompt: |
Operation Mode: update
Existing Document: [path from Step 1]
## Review Feedback to Address
$STEP_5_OUTPUT
Address each issue raised in the review feedback.
```
- **After 2 rejections** → Flag for human review, present accumulated feedback to user and end
Present review result to user for approval.
### Step 6: Consistency Verification (Design Doc only) [Stop]
**Skip condition**: Document type is PRD or ADR → Proceed to completion.
For Design Doc, invoke design-sync:
```
subagent_type: design-sync
description: "Verify conGenerates integration/E2E test skeletons from Design Doc ACs using ROI-based selection and journey-based E2E reservation. Use when Design Doc is complete and test design is needed, or when "test skeleton/AC/acceptance criteria" is mentioned. Behavior-first approach for minimal tests with maximum coverage.
Validates Design Doc compliance and implementation completeness from third-party perspective. Use PROACTIVELY after implementation completes or when "review/implementation check/compliance" is mentioned. Provides acceptance criteria validation and quality reports.
Validates consistency between PRD/Design Doc and code implementation. Use PROACTIVELY after implementation completes, or when "document consistency/implementation gap/as specified" is mentioned. Uses multi-source evidence matching to identify discrepancies.
Analyzes existing codebase objectively for facts about implementation, user behavior patterns, and technical architecture. Use when existing code needs to be understood without hypothesis bias. Invoked before Design Doc creation to produce focused guidance for technical designers.
Detects conflicts across multiple Design Docs and provides structured reports. Use when multiple Design Docs exist, or when "consistency/conflict/sync/between documents" is mentioned. Focuses on detection and reporting only, no modifications.
Reviews document consistency and completeness, providing approval decisions. Use PROACTIVELY after PRD/UI Spec/Design Doc/work plan creation, or when "document review/approval/check" is mentioned. Detects contradictions and rule violations with improvement suggestions.
Verifies consistency between test skeleton comments and implementation code. Use PROACTIVELY after test implementation completes, or when "test review/skeleton verification" is mentioned. Returns quality reports with failing items and fix instructions.
Comprehensively collects problem-related information and creates evidence matrix. Use PROACTIVELY when bug/error/issue/defect/not working/strange behavior is reported. Reports only observations without proposing solutions.