Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when creating, updating, or generating README and documentation files for projects and libraries
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Use this skill when:
Analyze the project to understand:
Use this standard structure:
# Project Name
Brief description (1-2 sentences)
## Features
- Feature 1
- Feature 2
- Feature 3
## Installation
[Setup instructions]
## Quick Start
[Basic usage example]
## Documentation
[Link to detailed docs]
## API Reference
[Key endpoints/functions]
## Examples
[Working examples]
## Configuration
[Setup options]
## Troubleshooting
[Common issues and solutions]
## Contributing
[How to contribute]
## License
[License information]
Include practical, working examples:
Check before completing:
# Project Name
One-liner explaining what this project does.
Long paragraph (2-3 sentences) describing problem solved and approach.
## Features
- ✅ Feature with emoji for visual interest
- ✅ Key capability with brief description
- ✅ Unique advantage over alternatives
## Installation
### Requirements
- Node.js 18+
- pnpm 8+
### Steps
\`\`\`bash
pnpm install project-name
\`\`\`
Keep this minimal (5-10 lines of code max):
## Quick Start
\`\`\`javascript
import { feature } from 'project-name';
const result = feature({ option: 'value' });
console.log(result);
\`\`\`
Make examples realistic and copy-paste ready:
## Examples
### Basic Usage
\`\`\`typescript
// Simple example with real output
const instance = new MyClass();
instance.doSomething(); // Output: expected result
\`\`\`
### Advanced Configuration
\`\`\`typescript
// Complex example showing options
const instance = new MyClass({
option1: true,
option2: 'value'
});
\`\`\`
| Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Wall of text | Impossible to scan | Use headers and lists |
| Missing setup | Readers can't install | Include step-by-step instructions |
| No examples | Unclear how to use | Add working code examples |
| Outdated info | Misleads users | Update with releases |
| Too detailed | Overwhelming | Link to full docs instead |
| No table of contents | Hard to navigate | Add section links at top |
| Broken links | Poor user experience | Test all external links |
| Marketing fluff | Lacks substance | Focus on what it does, not hype |
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Starting with a long feature list before the description | Readers don't know what the project is, so features are meaningless | Lead with a 1-2 sentence value proposition before listing features |
| Using pseudocode or placeholder examples | Forces readers to infer the real API; causes frustration and abandonment | Show actual runnable code with real imports, function names, and expected output |
| Putting a 20-step installation guide in Quick Start | Overwhelming setup drives users away; contradicts "quick" start | Quick Start must be 1-3 commands; link detailed setup to a separate guide |
| Writing marketing copy instead of technical facts | Vague statements like "blazing fast" give no actionable information | Use specific claims with data: "reduces build time by 40% (measured on 10k LOC)" |
| Not updating README when features change | Outdated commands fail silently; users blame the project, not the docs | Treat README as code: update it in the same PR as every feature change |
Related Skills:
doc-generator - Automated documentation from codewriting-skills - Writing quality guidelinestechnical-writer - Professional documentation agentRelated Agents:
technical-writer - Uses this skill for documentationdeveloper - Writes README for new projectsBefore starting:
Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
After completing:
.claude/context/memory/learnings.md.claude/context/memory/issues.md.claude/context/memory/decisions.mdASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。