improve-doc

$npx mdskill add existential-birds/beagle/improve-doc

Analyze and improve markdown docs using Diataxis principles

  • Improves existing documentation by classifying and refining sections.
  • Depends on the docs-style skill for Diataxis classification guidance.
  • Analyzes document structure, classifies sections, and identifies issues.
  • Interactively refines each section based on user approval.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/improve-docView on GitHub ↗
---
name: improve-doc
description: Analyze and improve existing documentation using Diataxis principles
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# 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 occurred

More from existential-birds/beagle

SkillDescription
adr-decision-extractionUse when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit \"[ADR]\" tags. Triggers on \"what decisions did we make\", \"extract decisions from this chat\", \"find the choices in our discussion\", or \"summarize architectural decisions\". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents \u2014 use adr-writing or write-adr for that.
adr-writingUse when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on \"write the ADR\", \"format as MADR\", \"check ADR quality\", \"mark gaps in ADR\". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).
agent-architecture-analysisUse when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on \"analyze agent architecture\", \"12-factor audit\", \"how compliant is this agent\", or \"evaluate this LLM app\". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists \u2014 this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.
app-intents-code-reviewReviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.
artifact-analysisUse when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: \"analyze these docs\", \"scan my project for context\", \"read the docs folder\", \"summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/\", \"extract context from docs/\", \"what's in this folder\", \"go read everything in X and tell me what's there\". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups (\"find this function\", \"search the repo\"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.
axum-code-reviewReviews axum web framework code for routing patterns, extractor usage, middleware, state management, and error handling. Use when reviewing Rust code that uses axum, tower, or hyper for HTTP services. Covers axum 0.7+ patterns including State, Path, Query, Json extractors.
brainstorm-beagleUse when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: \"brainstorm this\", \"I have an idea for...\", \"help me think through this project\", \"what should I build\", \"spec this out\". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews \u2014 produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.
bubbletea-code-reviewReviews BubbleTea TUI code for proper Elm architecture, model/update/view patterns, and Lipgloss styling. Use when reviewing terminal UI code using charmbracelet/bubbletea.
cloudkit-code-reviewReviews CloudKit code for container setup, record handling, subscriptions, and sharing patterns. Use when reviewing code with import CloudKit, CKContainer, CKRecord, CKShare, or CKSubscription.
combine-code-reviewReviews Combine framework code for memory leaks, operator misuse, and error handling. Use when reviewing code with import Combine, AnyPublisher, @Published, PassthroughSubject, or CurrentValueSubject.