SkillAgentSearch skills...

recipe-update-doc

Update existing design documents (Design Doc / PRD / ADR) with review

Install / Use

npx skills add shinpr/claude-code-workflows --skill recipe-update-doc

Installs into whichever agent you are using.

About this skill
📄

SKILL.md

Installable skill definition

Quality Score

88/100

Category

Automation

Supported Platforms

Universal

Our assessment of recipe-update-doc

recipe-update-doc scores 88/100 on our quality scale, 1425th of 2,869 Automation skills we index (top 50%).

Its SKILL.md is 9.3 KB long, well organised into 13 sections with 4 code examples: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.

It has 687 GitHub stars, a meaningful sign that others use it.

Substance
29/30
Structure
20/20
Description
12/15
Adoption
12/20
Freshness
15/15

Maintenance, license and trust

  • The repository was last updated 4 days ago, so recipe-update-doc is actively maintained.
  • It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
  • Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.

Safety scan

No issues found

Our scan of the whole file found no instruction hijacking, hidden characters, credential access, data exfiltration or destructive commands.

Automated pattern scan on 2026-10-05. It catches known dangerous patterns, not every risk — read a skill before letting an agent act on it.

recipe-update-doc compared with similar skills

All 4 of these similar skills score higher than recipe-update-doc; compare them before choosing.

SkillScoreStarsUpdatedFormat
recipe-update-doc (this skill)by shinpr886874d agoSKILL.md
Agent-Reachby Panniantong10091.6k20d agoCLAUDE.md
Scraplingby D4Vinci10085.8k1d agoMCP Server
rufloby ruvnet10073.9ktodayMCP Server
algorithmic-artby anthropics100177.9k13d agoSKILL.md

Frequently asked questions

How do I install recipe-update-doc?
Run npx skills add shinpr/claude-code-workflows --skill recipe-update-doc. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent.
Which AI agents does recipe-update-doc work with?
It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
Is recipe-update-doc safe to use?
Our scan of the whole file found no instruction hijacking, hidden characters, credential access, data exfiltration or destructive commands. It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
Is recipe-update-doc still maintained?
The repository was last updated 4 days ago, so recipe-update-doc is actively maintained.

name: recipe-update-doc description: Update existing design documents (Design Doc / PRD / ADR) with review disable-model-invocation: true

Explicit User Instruction: The user explicitly instructs and authorizes every subagent call named in this recipe. Execute each applicable call when its prerequisites are met.

Execute Skill: llm-friendly-context before writing Agent prompts, handoffs, or generated artifacts. Execute Skill: subagents-orchestration-guide before making workflow decisions, invoking agents, or resolving findings.

Context: Dedicated to updating existing design documents.

Orchestrator Definition

Core Identity: "I am an orchestrator." (see subagents-orchestration-guide skill)

Local authority gate: Make this recipe's workflow decisions and validate each returned result directly; delegate semantic deliverable production to the named specialist.

Review Resolution Gate [MANDATORY]: Resolve every actionable deliverable-review finding through subagents-orchestration-guide Review Resolution before correction or progression. Before the first finding disposition, read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill.

Execution Gate: Complete Steps 1-6 in order, following only the branches activated by document type and review result. Advance only through each step's stated evidence, review convergence, or approval condition. Complete after the final approval gate and every applicable Completion Criterion is satisfied.

Execution Protocol:

  1. Invoke named specialists for deliverable production — pass deliverable paths between them and validate their results (see subagents-orchestration-guide "Orchestrator Execution Boundary")
  2. Execute update flow:
    • Identify target → Clarify changes → Update document → Review → Consistency check
    • Stop at the [Stop: Final approval] marker → Wait for user approval before completing
  3. Scope: Complete when the user approves completing the update

At each Agent invocation below, build the prompt as a mechanical extraction: copy the named source values into the exact fields, apply only the declared serialization, then invoke immediately.

CRITICAL: Execute document-reviewer — it is the quality gate for document accuracy.

Workflow Overview

Target document → change clarification
                        ↓
              technical-designer / technical-designer-frontend / prd-creator (update mode)
                        ↓ (Design Doc only)
              code-verifier → document-reviewer
                        ↓ (Design Doc only)
              design-sync → [Stop: Final approval]

Scope Boundaries

Included in this skill:

  • Existing document identification and selection
  • Change content clarification
  • Document update with appropriate agent (update mode)
  • Document review with document-reviewer
  • Consistency verification with design-sync (Design Doc only)

Out of scope (redirect to appropriate skills):

  • New requirement analysis
  • Work planning or implementation

Responsibility Boundary: This skill completes when the user approves completing the update.

Target document: $ARGUMENTS

Execution Flow

Step 1: Target Document Identification

Discover the existing documents under docs/design/, docs/prd/, and docs/adr/.

Decision flow:

| Situation | Action | |-----------|--------| | $ARGUMENTS specifies a path | Use specified document | | $ARGUMENTS describes a topic | Search documents matching the topic | | Multiple candidates found | Present options with AskUserQuestion | | No documents found | Report and end (document creation is out of scope) |

Step 2: Document Type and Layer Determination

Determine type from document path, then determine the layer to select the correct update agent:

| Path Pattern | Type | Update Agent | Notes | |-------------|------|--------------|-------| | docs/design/*.md | Design Doc | technical-designer or technical-designer-frontend | See layer detection below | | docs/prd/*.md | PRD | prd-creator | - | | docs/adr/*.md | ADR | technical-designer or technical-designer-frontend | See layer detection below |

Layer detection (for Design Doc and ADR): Read the document and determine its layer from content signals:

  • Frontend (→ technical-designer-frontend): Document title/scope mentions React, components, UI, frontend; or file contains component hierarchy, state management, UI interactions
  • Backend (→ technical-designer): All other cases (API, data layer, business logic, infrastructure)

ADR Update Guidance:

  • Minor changes (clarification, typo fix, small scope adjustment): Update the existing ADR file
  • Major changes (decision reversal, significant scope change): Create a new ADR that supersedes the original

Step 3: Change Content Clarification

Determine which sections need updating, the reason for the change, and the expected outcome after the update. Derive them from the request and the target document. Use AskUserQuestion only for an item the request and document leave undetermined, and only when a different answer would change which sections are updated or what the update must achieve.

Pass the resulting items, covered sections, and any stated total size budget to update or revision agents. Before the next approval gate, map every diff hunk to an approved item or required consistency update. Remove accidental unmapped changes; when a necessary change would alter the requested document outcome or explicit size constraint, return to the request clarification gate.

Step 4: Document Update

Invoke the update agent determined in Step 2:

subagent_type: [Update Agent from Step 2]
description: "Update [Type from Step 2]"
prompt: |
  Operation Mode: update
  Existing Document: [path from Step 1]

  ## Changes Required
  [Step 3 statements for the sections to update, reason, and expected outcome, copied verbatim]

  Update the document to reflect the specified changes.
  Add change history entry.

Step 5: Document Review

For Design Doc updates only: Before document-reviewer, invoke code-verifier:

subagent_type: code-verifier
description: "Verify updated Design Doc"
prompt: |
  doc_type: design-doc
  document_path: [path from Step 1]
  Verify the updated Design Doc against current codebase.

  Verification focus: Pay special attention to literal identifier referential
  integrity in the updated sections (paths, endpoints, type names, config keys).

Store output as: $CODE_VERIFICATION_OUTPUT

Invoke document-reviewer with the applicable exact shape:

  • Design Doc: doc_type: DesignDoc, target: [path from Step 1], review_context: update, and verification_evidence: $CODE_VERIFICATION_OUTPUT.
  • PRD: doc_type: PRD and target: [path from Step 1].
  • ADR: doc_type: ADRBatch, targets: [path from Step 1], and review_context: update.

For each type, review consistency of the changed sections and their dependent statements, governing requirements, and change history.

Store output as: $STEP_5_OUTPUT

On review result:

  • Pass → Proceed to Step 6
  • Needs revision → Apply the Review Resolution Gate. Return to Step 4 when apply findings exist, using the following prompt:
    subagent_type: [Update Agent from Step 2]
    description: "Revise [Type from Step 2]"
    prompt: |
      Operation Mode: update
      Existing Document: [path from Step 1]
    
      ## Adjudicated Review Findings
      [complete reviewer finding objects verbatim, with only their orchestrator dispositions added]
    
      Treat these findings as the complete revision scope and preserve adjacent content.
    
  • On re-review pass prior_feedback as [{id, disposition, reason?, evidence}]
  • All actionable findings are decline → Proceed to Step 6

Step 6: Consistency Verification and Final Approval [Stop: Final approval]

For Design Doc only, invoke design-sync first:

subagent_type: design-sync
description: "Verify consistency"
prompt: "source_design: [path from Step 1]"

When conflicts are detected, apply the Review Resolution Gate and follow its bounded verifier handoff and convergence rules, returning selected corrections to Step 4 for the owning document.

For every document type, present the updated document, the review outcome, any resolved declines, and the sync result when one ran. This is the only approval gate in the flow: wait for the user's decision before completing.

Error Handling

| Error | Action | |-------|--------| | Target document not found | Report and end (document creation is out of scope) | | Sub-agent update fails | Log failure, present error to user, retry once |

Completion Criteria

  • [ ] Identified target document
  • [ ] Change content determined from the request, the document, or a question whose answer changed the update
  • [ ] Updated document with appropriate agent (update mode)
  • [ ] Executed code-verifier before document-reviewer (Design Doc only)
  • [ ] Executed document-reviewer and addressed feedback
  • [ ] Executed design-sync for consistency verification (Design Doc only)
  • [ ] Obtained user approval to complete the update

Output Example

Document update completed.

  • Updated document: docs/design/[document-name].md
  • Approval: user approved completing the update

When findings were declined during review, append their IDs, governing reasons, and evidence to this completion response.

Related Skills

View on GitHub
GitHub Stars687
CategoryAutomation
Updated4d ago
Forks104

Languages

JavaScript

Trust signals

100/100

From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.

No cautions