Doc Coauthoring

Doc Co-Authoring Workflow

"Thoroughness here prevents confusion when actual stakeholders read the document."

Overview

This skill guides collaborative document creation through three structured stages: context gathering, iterative section refinement, and reader testing. The goal is to transfer the author's full intent into a document that works for readers who lack that context.

When to Invoke

Triggers for this skill:

• "Write a doc" / "Draft a proposal" / "Create a spec"
• Product Requirements Document (PRD)
• Design document / Technical spec
• RFC (Request for Comments)
• Project proposal / Business case
• Meeting agenda or summary doc
• Onboarding guide or runbook

Do not use for: short single-purpose outputs (emails, commit messages, code comments). Those are better handled inline.

Three-Stage Workflow

Stage 1: Context Gathering

Close knowledge gaps before writing anything.

Ask clarifying questions:

• What type of document is this? (PRD, design doc, proposal, RFC, runbook...)
• Who is the audience? (engineers, executives, customers, mixed...)
• What decisions should readers be able to make after reading this?
• What are the hard constraints? (length, format, deadline, approval process)
• What prior context does the author have that readers won't?

Accept info-dumps: If the user provides a brain dump, meeting notes, or links to existing docs — absorb everything. Extract the key requirements, constraints, and decisions already made.

Meta-context check:

• Are there existing templates or style guides to follow?
• Is there a prior version of this document?
• Are there related documents readers will cross-reference?

Stage 1 output: A clear scope statement: "We are writing a [type] for [audience] that enables [decision/action]. The document is [scope]."

Stage 2: Section-by-Section Refinement

Build the document iteratively, one section at a time.

Scaffold first: Create a full document outline with placeholder sections immediately. This gives the author a map of where we're going and lets them see the overall structure before committing to any section.

# [Document Title]

## Overview
[placeholder — will cover: purpose, scope, key decisions]

## Background
[placeholder — will cover: context, motivation, prior art]

## Proposal
[placeholder — will cover: what we're building, why this approach]

## Alternatives Considered
[placeholder — will cover: what we ruled out and why]

## Implementation Plan
[placeholder — will cover: phases, timeline, dependencies]

## Open Questions
[placeholder — will cover: unresolved decisions needing input]

Per-section workflow:

1. Brainstorm: Generate 5-20 options for how to structure/frame this section

   • Present options as numbered choices with brief descriptions
   • Include at least one "safe/conventional" option and one "bold/direct" option
   • Let the author select or combine options

2. Draft: Write the selected approach fully

3. Refine: Make targeted edits based on feedback

   • Use str_replace to replace specific phrases or paragraphs
   • Never reprint the entire document for a small change
   • Preserve the author's voice in suggested edits

4. Confirm: Get explicit "this section is done" before moving to the next

Option generation example (for an "Alternatives Considered" section):

Here are 5 options for structuring "Alternatives Considered":

1. **Elimination table** — Each alternative as a row, columns for pros/cons/why-rejected. Fast to skim.
2. **Narrative paragraphs** — One paragraph per alternative with story arc of why we considered and rejected it. Good for complex tradeoffs.
3. **Decision log format** — Date + decision + rationale per item. Good when alternatives were explored over time.
4. **Comparative matrix** — All options including chosen approach on axes like complexity/risk/value. Visual.
5. **One-liner summary** — Brief acknowledgment that we considered X, Y, Z, with a single sentence each. Good when alternatives are obvious.

Which resonates, or should I blend elements?

Stage 3: Reader Testing

Test whether the document works for readers who lack the author's context.

Why this matters: Authors know too much. Blind spots are invisible to them. A reader sub-agent with no conversation context surfaces exactly what real readers will struggle with.

Spawn a reader sub-agent with ONLY the document content (no prior conversation context):

You are reading this document for the first time with no prior context.

Read this document: [full document text]

Answer these questions:
1. What is this document trying to accomplish? (Should match author intent)
2. What questions does it leave unanswered that a reader would need answered to act?
3. Are there any sections where the reasoning is unclear or jumps without explanation?
4. What would a skeptical reader's strongest objection be?
5. Is there anything that only makes sense if you already know [the thing the author knows]?

Integrate reader feedback:

• For each gap the reader found: decide whether to address in the doc or treat as out-of-scope
• Targeted edits only — don't restructure unless essential
• Re-test reader if major sections were changed

Completion criteria:

• All placeholder sections filled
• Reader sub-agent can answer "what is this for?" correctly
• No critical unanswered questions identified by reader
• Author confirms document matches their intent
• Document is standalone — no external context required to understand

Editing Mechanics

Use str_replace for precision

When making edits, specify the exact text to replace:

REPLACE:
"The system will be fast."

WITH:
"The system targets p99 latency < 100ms under 1000 concurrent users."

Never reprint the entire document to show one changed sentence. This respects the author's time and makes it easy to see exactly what changed.

Preserve authorial voice

If the author writes in a particular style (casual/formal, first-person/third-person, active/passive), match it in all additions. Note their stylistic choices explicitly:

• "I notice you're using first-person plural ('we'). I'll maintain that."
• "Your examples are concrete and code-focused. I'll keep examples technical."

Document Type Templates

PRD (Product Requirements Document)

Sections: Executive Summary, Problem Statement, Goals & Non-Goals, User Stories, Requirements, Success Metrics, Timeline, Open Questions

Technical Design Doc

Sections: Summary, Background, Design, Implementation Details, Testing Plan, Rollout Plan, Alternatives Considered, Open Questions

RFC (Request for Comments)

Sections: Abstract, Motivation, Detailed Design, Drawbacks, Alternatives, Unresolved Questions

Project Proposal

Sections: Executive Summary, Problem, Proposed Solution, Business Case, Risks, Timeline, Resources Required, Next Steps

Memory Protocol

Before starting a co-authoring session:

cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md | grep -i "doc\|writing\|spec\|prd"

After completing a document, record patterns that worked:

• Effective section structures → .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
• Document types with special requirements → .claude/context/memory/issues.md

Related Skills

• technical-writer agent — Documentation structure and style
• brainstorming — Extended brainstorming sessions for complex sections
• spec-gathering — Requirements gathering before doc creation
• prd-generator — Structured PRD generation workflow