improve-doc
Analyze and improve existing documentation using Diataxis principles
Works with
---
name: improve-doc
description: Analyze and improve existing documentation using Diataxis principles
license: Apache-2.0
---
# Improve Doc
Analyze an existing markdown document, classify sections by Diataxis type, identify issues, and interactively refine each section.
## Arguments
- **Path:** Path to the markdown document to improve (required)
## Workflow Overview
Invoke the **improve-doc** skill with a document path, e.g. `improve-doc docs/guides/getting-started.md`.
The skill runs in two phases:
1. **Analysis Phase:** Parse document, classify sections, identify issues
2. **Refinement Phase:** Interactive loop to improve each section
## Gates
Hard sequencing — advance only when the **pass condition** is met (artifact or explicit user input, not assumed).
**Before Phase 2 (refinement):**
1. **Read** — Full contents of the file at **Path** are loaded.
- **Pass:** Enumerated sections (from `#` / `##` / `###` headings) cover every heading in the file; titles match the source.
2. **Core skill** — [docs-style](../docs-style/SKILL.md) is loaded (or its path read) before classification.
- **Pass:** Analysis output reflects at least one concrete principle from that skill (name it or quote briefly).
3. **Handoff** — User saw an analysis summary (template in Step 5 or equivalent) and entered **`start`** to begin refinement, or **`abort`** to exit.
- **Pass:** If `abort`, no writes to **Path**. If `start`, proceed to Phase 2.
**Before overwriting the file (Phase 2, Step 4):**
1. **Choices** — Every section with open issues has a terminal outcome: applied **`yes`**, unchanged **`skip`**, or **`modify`** loop finished with **`yes`** or **`skip`**.
- **Pass:** No section left in a pending `modify` state unless the user aborted the whole session (then do not write).
2. **Skips** — Content for every **`skip`** matches the original section text (copy preserved, not paraphrased).
- **Pass:** Full block equality check against the initial read (line-for-line, including whitespace).
3. **Write** — Only after the above.
- **Pass:** Single save to **Path**; completion report notes backup or major restructure if applicable (Rules).
**Ambiguous Diataxis type** — If classification is uncertain, do not edit that section until the user answers the clarifying fork (Step 2b) or explicitly confirms your stated default.
## Phase 1: Analysis
### Step 1: Read Document
Read the target markdown file and parse into sections based on headings:
- Each `#`, `##`, `###` heading starts a new section
- Capture heading level, title, and content
- Preserve hierarchy for context
### Step 2: Load Core Skill
Load [docs-style](../docs-style/SKILL.md) for core writing principles that apply to all documentation types.
### Step 3: Classify Each Section
For each section, determine the Diataxis type using these indicators (for the full decision procedure and the two key distinctions, see [docs-style/references/diataxis-compass.md](../docs-style/references/diataxis-compass.md)):
| Type | Indicators |
|------|------------|
| **Tutorial** | "Let's", "we will", step-by-step learning, builds toward a project, minimal explanation of why |
| **How-To** | "How to" title, task-focused steps, assumes prior knowledge, goal-oriented |
| **Reference** | Parameter tables, type signatures, API specs, factual descriptions, no narrative |
| **Explanation** | "Why", "because", history, trade-offs, alternatives, conceptual discussion |
**Classification rules:**
1. Check title first - "How to X" is always How-To, "Why X" is always Explanation
2. Look for structural patterns - tables with parameters/types suggest Reference
3. Analyze language - learning-oriented ("Let's learn") vs task-oriented ("To accomplish X")
4. Consider context - what comes before/after this section
5. Mark as "Mixed" if section blends types (this is an issue to fix)
### Step 4: Identify Issues
For each section, check for issues based on its detected type:
**Tutorial issues:**
- Explains "why" instead of just guiding the learner
- Skips steps assuming prior knowledge
- No clear learning outcome
- Missing "you will build/learn" framing
**How-To issues:**
- Includes explanatory tangents
- Missing prerequisites
- Steps not atomic (multiple actions per step)
- No verification that goal was achieved
**Reference issues:**
- Missing parameter types or return values
- Narrative text instead of factual description
- Incomplete coverage of options/parameters
- No code examples
**Explanation issues:**
- Includes procedural steps
- Missing context for "why"
- No trade-offs or alternatives discussed
- Reads like reference material
**Cross-type issues (any section):**
- Mixed Diataxis types in single section
- Unclear who the audience is
- Missing or vague heading
- Wall of text without structure
### Step 5: Present Analysis
Display analysis summary to user:
```markdown
## Document Analysis
**File:** `docs/guides/getting-started.md`
**Sections found:** 8
**Estimated time:** ~15 minutes to refine
### Type Breakdown
| Type | Sections | Health |
|------|----------|--------|
| Tutorial | 2 | 1 issue |
| How-To | 3 | 4 issues |
| Reference | 1 | Clean |
| Explanation | 1 | 2 issues |
| Mixed | 1 | Needs split |
### Top Issues
1. **Section "Setting Up"** (How-To): Contains explanatory tangent about architecture
2. **Section "Configuration Options"** (Mixed): Blends reference table with tutorial steps
3. **Section "Authentication"** (How-To): Missing prerequisites, steps not atomic
4. **Section "Why We Built This"** (Explanation): Includes procedural steps
### Ready to Refine?
I'll go through each section with issues. For each one, you can:
- **yes** - Accept the proposed improvement
- **skip** - Keep original, move to next section
- **modify** - Tell me what to change about the proposal
Type "start" to begin refinement, or "abort" to exit without changes.
```
## Phase 2: Interactive Refinement
### Step 1: Load Type-Specific Skills
As you encounter each section type, load the relevant skill if not already loaded:
- Tutorial sections: [tutorial-docs](../tutorial-docs/SKILL.md)
- How-To sections: [howto-docs](../howto-docs/SKILL.md)
- Reference sections: [reference-docs](../reference-docs/SKILL.md)
- Explanation sections: [explanation-docs](../explanation-docs/SKILL.md)
### Step 2: Refinement Loop
For each section with issues, in document order:
#### 2a: Show Current State
```markdown
---
## Section 3 of 5: "Setting Up" (How-To)
### Current Content
> ## Setting Up
>
> Before we begin, it's important to understand why the architecture
> works this way. The system uses a microservices pattern because...
> [explanatory content]
>
> To set up the project:
> 1. Clone the repo and install dependencies
> 2. Configure the environment variables
> 3. Start the server
### Issues Found
1. **Explanatory tangent** (lines 1-3): How-To should assume reader knows why; move explanation to dedicated Explanation section
2. **Non-atomic steps** (step 1): "Clone and install" is two actions; split into separate steps
3. **Missing verification**: No way to confirm setup succeeded
```
#### 2b: Ask Clarifying Question (if needed)
If the type classification is uncertain:
```markdown
### Quick Question
This section has characteristics of both How-To (task steps) and Explanation (why content). How would you like to handle it?
1. **Split** - Create separate How-To and Explanation sections
2. **How-To** - Remove explanation, keep as pure How-To
3. **Explanation** - Remove steps, keep as pure Explanation
```
#### 2c: Propose Improvement
```markdown
### Proposed Improvement
> ## Setting Up
>
> **Prerequisites:** Familiarity with microservices architecture
>
> ### Steps
>
> 1. Clone the repository
> ```bash
> git clone https://github.com/example/project.git
> ```
>
> 2. Install dependencies
> ```bash
> cd project && npm install
> ```
>
> 3. Configure environment variables
> ```bash
> cp .env.example .env
> ```
>
> 4. Start the server
> ```bash
> npm start
> ```
>
> ### Verify
>
> Open http://localhost:3000 - you should see the welcome page.
**Changes made:**
- Removed explanatory content (suggest creating "Architecture Overview" section)
- Split "clone and install" into separate steps
- Added verification step
- Added prerequisites reference
---
**Your choice:** [yes / skip / modify]
```
#### 2d: Handle User Choice
**yes** - Apply the proposed changes to the section, continue to next
**skip** - Keep original content unchanged, continue to next
**modify** - User provides feedback:
```markdown
> modify: Keep the explanation but move it to a collapsible "Why?" block
### Revised Proposal
> ## Setting Up
>
> <details>
> <summary>Why this architecture?</summary>
>
> The system uses a microservices pattern because...
>
> </details>
>
> ### Steps
> [same as before]
**Your choice:** [yes / skip / modify]
```
### Step 3: Handle Mixed Sections
For sections classified as "Mixed":
```markdown
---
## Section 5 of 5: "Configuration Options" (Mixed)
### Current Content
> ## Configuration Options
>
> Let's walk through configuring your application. First, you'll need
> to understand the available options:
>
> | Option | Type | Default | Description |
> |--------|------|---------|-------------|
> | port | number | 3000 | Server port |
> | debug | boolean | false | Enable debug mode |
>
> Now let's configure each one step by step...
### Issues Found
1. **Mixed types**: Tutorial framing ("Let's walk through") with Reference content (options table)
### Recommendation
Split into two sections:
1. **Reference section** - "Configuration Reference" with the options table
2. **Tutorial section** - "Configuring Your First App" with learning-oriented walkthrough
Would you like me to:
1. **Split** - Create both sections
2. **Reference only** - Keep just the table, remove tutorial framing
3. **Tutorial only** - Expand into full tutorial, move table to appendix
```
### Step 4: Write Updated Document
After all sections processed:
1. **Build updated content** from accepted changes
2. **Preserve unchanged sections** exactly as they were
3. **Overwrite original file** with updated content
### Step 5: Report Results
```markdown
## Refinement Complete
**File:** `docs/guides/getting-started.md`
### Changes Summary
| Section | Action | Type |
|---------|--------|------|
| Setting Up | Improved | How-To |
| Configuration Options | Split | Reference + Tutorial |
| Authentication | Improved | How-To |
| Why We Built This | Skipped | Explanation |
### Sections Modified
- **Setting Up**: Removed tangent, split steps, added verification
- **Configuration Options**: Split into "Configuration Reference" and "Configuring Your App"
- **Authentication**: Added prerequisites, made steps atomic
### New Sections Created
- **Configuration Reference** (Reference): Options table from split
- **Configuring Your App** (Tutorial): Learning walkthrough from split
### Recommendations
Consider creating these additional documents:
- `docs/explanation/architecture-overview.md` - For content removed from "Setting Up"
The original file has been updated.
```
## Rules
- Follow **Gates** for phase transitions and before saving to **Path**
- Always load `docs-style` skill before analysis
- Load type-specific skills lazily as sections are encountered
- Never modify the file until refinement phase completes (see Gates: overwrite)
- Preserve sections marked "skip" exactly as-is
- When splitting sections, maintain logical reading order
- Ask clarifying questions when type classification is ambiguous (confidence < 70%)
- For "Mixed" sections, always offer split as the first option
- Include specific line references when identifying issues
- Show diff-style changes in proposals when helpful
- Respect user's "modify" feedback - iterate until they say "yes" or "skip"
- Create backup note in output if major restructuring occurredMore Writing & Documentation skills
paper-context-resolver
lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills
Rigor Paper Context helper for README-first deep learning repo reproduction. Use only when the README and repository files leave a narrow reproduction-critical gap and the task is to resolve a specific paper detail such as dataset split, preprocessing, evaluation protocol, checkpoint mapping, or runtime assumption from primary paper sources while recording conflicts. Do not use for general paper summary, repo scanning, environment setup, command execution, title-only paper lookup, or replacing README guidance by default.
repo-intake-and-plan
lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills
Rigor Intake helper for README-first deep learning repo reproduction. Use when the task is specifically to scan a repository, read the README and common project files, extract documented commands, classify inference, evaluation, and training candidates, and return the smallest trustworthy reproduction plan to the main orchestrator. Do not use for environment setup, asset download, command execution, final reporting, paper lookup, or end-to-end orchestration.
minimal-run-and-audit
lllllllama/rigorpilot-skills
Rigor Run skill for README-first deep learning repo reproduction. Use when the task is specifically to capture or normalize evidence from the selected smoke test or documented inference or evaluation command and write standardized `repro_outputs/` files, including patch notes when repository files changed. Do not use for training execution, initial repo intake, generic environment setup, paper lookup, target selection, hidden scientific-meaning changes, or end-to-end orchestration by itself.

