# Coauthor Clear Documents with Structured Review

Important documents often fail because context, structure, and reader assumptions remain unclear. This skill guides collaborative drafting, focused revision, and reader testing through a repeatable three-stage workflow.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add sickn33/doc-coauthoring
```

## Metadata

- Status: approved
- Slug: sickn33-doc-coauthoring
- Skillstore revision: r2
- Version status: missing
- Tree hash: db4cc0fc8bd2aca26e43566426a8c02797a524a10c310e0f5c6a550c6a568bff
- Author: sickn33
- GitHub username: sickn33
- License: MIT
- Repository: https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/tree/main/skills/doc-coauthoring
- Ref: f9e2c34b4f19c7f3e6b0a1e93227b5f77cc12526
- Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- Audit status: complete
- Agent install advisory: allowed
- Manual install advisory: allowed
- Artifact signature: available
- Audit attestation: unavailable
- Human verification: not\_verified
- Risk factors: external\_commands, network
- Quality score: 79
- Quality tier: bronze
- Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/sickn33-doc-coauthoring
- Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/sickn33-doc-coauthoring/manifest

## Capabilities

- Collects document goals, audience details, templates, constraints, and supporting context through targeted questions.
- Proposes a tailored document structure and creates a Markdown scaffold with section placeholders.
- Brainstorms 5 to 20 candidate points for each section before the user selects priorities.
- Drafts and refines sections through focused edits based on explicit user feedback.
- Reviews completed documents for coherence, redundancy, contradictions, ambiguity, and unsupported assumptions.
- Tests reader comprehension with sub-agents or provides a manual fresh-conversation testing process.

## Use Cases

- Draft a Product Requirements Document: Build a product requirements document that aligns goals, constraints, stakeholders, and acceptance criteria.
- Develop a Technical RFC: Develop an RFC or technical specification with explicit trade-offs, dependencies, risks, and unresolved questions.
- Record a Team Decision: Create a decision record or proposal that explains context, alternatives, rationale, and expected impact.

## Prompt Templates

### Start a New Document

```
Help me coauthor a [document type] for [audience]. The desired outcome is [outcome]. Start by asking me the essential context questions.
```

### Improve an Existing Draft

```
I have a draft of [document]. Review its structure and ask questions about missing context. Then help me revise one section at a time.
```

### Apply a Template and Sources

```
Use this template: [template]. Gather context from the materials I provide and propose a section order. Identify the section with greatest uncertainty. For each section, brainstorm options before drafting. Apply only the changes I approve.
```

### Run Advanced Reader Testing

```
Coauthor an executive decision document from [context]. Track unresolved assumptions and stakeholder concerns during drafting. After revision, test the document with a fresh sub-agent. Report comprehension gaps, repair affected sections, and repeat testing until the stated exit criteria pass.
```

## Limitations

- Requires accurate context and timely feedback from the user.
- Cannot access shared documents or team channels without configured integrations and appropriate permissions.
- Requires manual reader testing when sub-agents are unavailable.
- Does not replace fact-checking, technical validation, legal review, or final owner approval.

## Best Practices

- Provide the audience, desired outcome, constraints, and source materials before drafting begins.
- Give specific feedback about what to keep, remove, combine, or clarify after each section.
- Verify facts, links, permissions, and technical claims before approving the final document.

## Anti Patterns

- Do not request a polished final document before sharing essential context.
- Do not grant integrations broader access than the document task requires.
- Do not treat fresh-reader feedback as a substitute for domain expert review.

## Security Audit

- Audited at: 2026-07-23T22:35:26.287\+00:00
- Summary: All eight static findings are false positives caused by Markdown tool names, a legitimate Claude URL, and ordinary documentation prose. No malicious command execution, network reconnaissance, prompt injection, or data exfiltration intent was found.

## Stats

- Views: 88
- Downloads: 14
- Favorites: 1
- Popularity score: 0