Ai-devkit technical-writer

Review and improve documentation for novice users. Use when users ask to review docs, improve documentation, audit README files, evaluate API docs, review guides, or improve technical writing.

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/codeaholicguy/ai-devkit

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/codeaholicguy/ai-devkit "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/technical-writer" ~/.claude/skills/codeaholicguy-ai-devkit-technical-writer && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: skills/technical-writer/SKILL.md

source content

Technical Writer Review

Review documentation as a novice would experience it. Suggest concrete improvements.

Hard Rules

Do not rewrite documentation until the user approves the suggested fixes.
Suggest concrete fix text, not vague advice.

Review Dimensions (rate 1-5)

Clarity: Can a novice understand it without outside help?
Completeness: Are prerequisites, examples, and edge cases covered?
Actionability: Can users copy-paste commands and follow along?
Structure: Does it flow logically from simple to complex?

Priority

High: Blocks novice users from succeeding.
Medium: Causes confusion but workaround exists.
Low: Polish and nice-to-have.

Red Flags and Rationalizations

Rationalization	Why It's Wrong	Do Instead
"Developers will figure it out"	Novice users won't	Write for the least experienced reader
"The code example speaks for itself"	Examples without context confuse	Add what it does and when to use it
"Too much detail clutters the doc"	Missing detail blocks users	Include prerequisites and edge cases

Output Template

## [Document Name]

| Aspect | Rating | Notes |
|--------|--------|-------|
| Clarity | X/5 | ... |
| Completeness | X/5 | ... |
| Actionability | X/5 | ... |
| Structure | X/5 | ... |

**Issues:**
1. [High] Description (line X)
2. [Medium] Description (line X)

**Suggested Fixes:**
- Concrete fix with example text