Doc Co-Authoring Workflow

---

name: doc-coauthoring description: Structured collaborative document creation through context gathering, iterative refinement, and reader testing. Use when co-authoring documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or RFCs. tags: [documentation, writing, collaboration, specs]

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.

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

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.

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.

During context gathering:

• 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, ask clarifying questions:

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").

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.

Stage 2: Refinement & Structure

Goal: Build the document section by section through brainstorming, curation, and iterative refinement.

For each section:

Step 1: Clarifying Questions

Ask 5-10 clarifying questions about what should be included in the section.

Step 2: Brainstorming

Brainstorm 5-20 things that might be included, depending on section complexity. Look for:

• Context shared that might have been forgotten
• Angles or considerations not yet mentioned

Step 3: Curation

Ask which points should be kept, removed, or combined. Request brief justifications.

Step 4: Gap Check

Ask if there's anything important missing for the section.

Step 5: Drafting

Draft the section based on curated selections.

Step 6: Iterative Refinement

As user provides feedback:

• Make surgical edits (never reprint the whole doc)
• If user edits doc directly, note the changes for future sections

Continue iterating until user is satisfied with the section.

Quality Checking

After 3 consecutive iterations with no substantial changes, ask if anything can be removed without losing important information.

Near Completion

As approaching completion (80%+ of sections done), re-read the entire document and check for:

• Flow and consistency across sections
• Redundancy or contradictions
• Anything that feels like generic filler
• Whether every sentence carries weight

Stage 3: Reader Testing

Goal: Test the document with a fresh Claude (no context bleed) to verify it works for readers.

Step 1: Predict Reader Questions

Generate 5-10 questions that readers would realistically ask.

Step 2: Test with Sub-Agent

For each question, invoke a sub-agent with just the document content and the question.

Summarize what Reader Claude got right/wrong for each question.

Step 3: Run Additional Checks

Invoke sub-agent to check for ambiguity, false assumptions, contradictions.

Step 4: Report and Fix

If issues found, loop back to refinement for problematic sections.

Exit Condition

When Reader Claude consistently answers questions correctly and doesn't surface new gaps or ambiguities, the doc is ready.

Final Review

When Reader Testing passes:

1. Recommend they do a final read-through themselves
2. Suggest double-checking any facts, links, or technical details
3. Ask them to verify it achieves the impact they wanted

Anti-Patterns

• Skipping context gathering and jumping straight to writing
• Writing entire documents in one shot without iterative review
• Not testing the document with a fresh reader perspective
• Ignoring organizational context and stakeholder concerns
• Over-polishing early sections while later sections remain empty

References

• Google Technical Writing
• Divio Documentation System