Skip to main content
ClaudeWave
Skill4.3k estrellas del repoactualizado 8d ago

doc-coauthoring

doc-coauthoring provides a structured three-stage workflow for collaborative document creation including technical specifications, proposals, decision documents, and RFCs. Users should invoke this skill when undertaking substantial writing projects that benefit from guided context gathering, iterative refinement with structural organization, and reader testing with fresh perspectives to identify blind spots before broader circulation.

Instalar en Claude Code
Copiar
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar /tmp/doc-coauthoring && cp -r /tmp/doc-coauthoring/skills/doc-coauthoring ~/.claude/skills/doc-coauthoring
Después abre una sesión nueva de Claude Code; el skill carga automáticamente.

SKILL.md

# 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.

## Runtime contract

Use `references/RUNTIME-MATRIX.md` to decide what is available in the current environment before offering connectors, artifacts, or reader-test subagents.

If no artifact-like surface is available, default to a normal markdown file in a user-specified path or an explicitly named working file. Do not assume artifacts are available.

## 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 Claude asks clarifying questions
2. **Refinement & Structure**: Iteratively build each section through brainstorming and editing
3. **Reader Testing**: Test the doc with a fresh Claude (no context) to catch blind spots before others read it

Explain that this approach helps ensure the doc works well when others read it (including when they paste it into Claude). 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 Claude knows, 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 the appropriate integration to fetch it
- If they provide a file, read it

**If user mentions editing an existing shared document:**
- Use the appropriate integration to read the current state
- Check for images without alt-text
- If images exist without alt-text, explain that when others use Claude to understand the doc, Claude won't be able to see them. Ask if they want alt-text generated. If so, request they paste each image into chat for descriptive alt-text generation.

### 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 integrations are available** (e.g., Slack, Teams, Google Drive, SharePoint, or other MCP servers), mention that these can be used to pull in context directly.

**If no integrations are detected and in Claude.ai or Claude app:** Suggest they can enable connectors in their Claude settings to allow pulling context from messaging apps and document storage directly.

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 integrations available: Inform them the content will be read now, then use the appropriate integration
  - If integrations not available: Explain lack of access. Suggest they enable connectors in Claude settings, or paste the relevant content directly.

- If user mentions entities/projects that are unknown:
  - Ask if connected tools should be searched to learn more
  - 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, point to channels to read, 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
code-reviewerSubagent

Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code. MUST BE USED for all code changes.

kaggle-minerSubagent

Use this agent when the user provides a Kaggle competition URL or asks to learn from Kaggle winning solutions. Examples:

literature-reviewerSubagent

Use this agent when the user asks to "conduct literature review", "search for papers", "analyze research papers", "identify research gaps", "review related work", or mentions starting a research project. This agent integrates with Zotero for automated paper collection, organization, and full-text analysis. Examples:

paper-minerSubagent

Use this agent when the user provides a research paper (PDF/DOCX/arXiv link) or asks to learn writing patterns from papers, extract venue-specific writing signals, study paper structure, or mine rebuttal strategies. The agent writes extracted knowledge into the active installed paper-miner writing memory for ml-paper-writing. It does not maintain project-specific writing memory.

rebuttal-writerSubagent

Use this agent when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "analyze review comments", or needs help with academic paper review response. This agent specializes in systematic rebuttal writing with professional tone and structured responses.

tdd-guideSubagent

Test-driven development guide for writing tests first, implementing the smallest passing change, and keeping verification tight. Use when the user explicitly wants TDD or when a task should be driven by failing tests before code.

analyze-resultsSlash Command

Run a blocker-first post-experiment workflow: validate evidence, produce strict statistical analysis when possible, and generate a decision-oriented results report only when the analysis bundle is sufficient. Uses results-analysis + results-report as a gated two-stage workflow.

commitSlash Command

Commit changes following Conventional Commits format (local only, no push).