docs-writing（文档写作）

Documentation Writing

52 rules across 9 categories for documentation quality. Focuses on concrete issues with concrete fixes.

Doc Writing/Audit Workflow

Copy and track this checklist during the audit:

Doc writing/audit progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Determine doc type (tutorial, how-to, reference, explanation) and audience
- [ ] Step 2: Run CRITICAL checks (voice and tone, structure and organization)
- [ ] Step 3: Run HIGH checks (clarity and language, code examples)
- [ ] Step 4: Run MEDIUM+ checks for remaining categories in scope
- [ ] Step 5: Report findings with file:line and concrete fixes

1. Audit only changed files unless a full sweep is requested.
2. Identify the doc type (tutorial, how-to, reference, explanation) and intended audience to select relevant categories.
3. Load rule files progressively by category prefix — read only what applies.
4. Prioritize CRITICAL and HIGH findings before medium-priority polish.
5. After fixes, rerun the relevant rules before finalizing.

Rule Categories by Priority

Quick Reference

Read only what is needed for the current scope:

• Category map and impact rationale: rules/_sections.md
• Rule-level guidance and examples: rules/<prefix>-*.md

Example rule files:

rules/voice-defaults.md
rules/structure-diataxis.md
rules/clarity-defaults.md

Each rule file contains:

• Why the rule matters
• Incorrect example
• Correct example

Review Output Contract

Report findings in this format:

## Documentation Audit Findings

### path/to/file.md
- [CRITICAL] `voice-defaults`: Passive voice obscures who performs the action.
  - Fix: Rewrite "The configuration is loaded by the server" as "The server loads the configuration."

### path/to/clean-file.md
- ✓ pass

• Group findings by file.
• Use file:line when line numbers are available.
• State issue and propose a concrete fix.
• Include clean files as ✓ pass.

Gotchas

• Don't audit files that weren't changed unless a full sweep was explicitly requested — scope creep drowns the real findings.
• Don't skip doc-type identification. Tutorial rules applied to reference content (or vice versa) produces wrong-shaped feedback.
• Don't report MEDIUM/LOW polish before surfacing CRITICAL/HIGH findings — the reader fixes what they see first.
• Don't load every rules/<prefix>-*.md file up front. Load progressively by category in scope.
• Don't report findings without file:line and a concrete fix — the Review Output Contract requires both.
• Don't rewrite content you were asked to review unless the user asked for edits — report issues, propose fixes, let the author apply them.