Skill v1.0.0
currentLLM-judged scan90/100version: "1.0.0" name: cognitive-doc-design description: Use when improving readability of existing documentation, PR descriptions, review notes, onboarding docs, RFCs, or guides; not for creating durable SDD specs or designs.
Cognitive Doc Design
Overview
Write documentation that lowers cognitive load. Lead with the useful answer, then reveal context, details, and edge cases in layers.
Pressure Scenario
Without this skill, an agent writes a dense PR body or design doc that is technically complete but forces the reader to reconstruct intent, scope, and verification.
With this skill, the document gives reviewers a clear path: what changed, why, where to look, what is out of scope, and how to verify it.
When to Use
Use for:
- PR descriptions and review notes.
- READMEs, guides, onboarding docs, RFCs, and existing non-SDD specs/design docs for readability
cleanup only.
- Long or dense markdown that needs to be easier to scan.
Use yuniel-writing-style instead when writing Yuniel's personal articles or public narrative posts. Combine with markdown-a11y for public Markdown accessibility.
For durable SDD specs or designs, use sdd-spec or sdd-design to create the artifact. Use this skill only as a readability overlay after the required SDD workflow is selected.
Core Patterns
| Pattern | Rule | |
|---|---|---|
| Lead with the answer | Put the decision, action, or outcome first. Context comes after. | |
| Progressive disclosure | Start with the happy path, then details, edge cases, and references. | |
| Chunking | Use small sections. Split long lists and paragraphs. | |
| Signposting | Use headings, labels, summaries, and tables so readers know where they are. | |
| Recognition over recall | Prefer tables, checklists, examples, and templates over memory-heavy prose. | |
| Review empathy | State what to review, what to ignore, and how to verify. |
Default Shape
# <Outcome-oriented title><One short paragraph: what changed, who it helps, and why it matters.>## Quick path1.<First action or review target>2.<Second action or detail>3.<Verification or expected result>## Details| Topic | Decision ||-------|----------|| <area> | <concise explanation> |## Checklist-[ ] <Reader can verify this>-[ ] <Reader can verify that>## Next step<Link, command, or follow-up action.>
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix | |
|---|---|---|
| Burying the decision | Put the outcome in the first paragraph. | |
| Writing one giant explanation | Split into quick path, details, checklist. | |
| Making reviewers infer scope | Add in-scope and out-of-scope bullets. | |
| Saying "tested" vaguely | List exact commands or manual verification. |