Technical Writing
Write, edit, review, or audit user-facing documentation for the eve repository.
Install
npx skills add vercel/eve --skill technical-writing -g -a claude-code -y- Repository
- vercel/eve5.8k
- Category
- Testing
- Updated
- 3d ago
- License
- Apache-2.0
- Context cost
- Mediumabout 1,622 tokens
- Runs scripts
- No, instructions only
What it does
Write, edit, review, or audit user-facing documentation for the eve repository. Use for changes under docs/, documentation tied to eve APIs or CLI behavior, docs work based on Slack or support feedback, and requests to make eve docs clearer, more natural, or less AI-patterned while verifying claims against current source, tests, CLI help, public releases, and repository conventions.
Technical writing
Write accurate, task-focused documentation for eve. Treat developers and AI agents as readers: make each section easy to scan, retrieve, and act on without relying on unstated context.
Choose a workflow
- For a new page or full rewrite, read references/writing-workflow.md.
- For targeted or structural changes to existing pages, read references/editing-workflow.md.
- Before finalizing any change, read references/review-framework.md.
- For formatting and terminology, read references/style-rules.md.
- For wording, voice, or AI-pattern concerns, read references/prose-quality.md.
- For page structure, read references/content-types.md when the content type is unclear or changing.
Verify before writing
Do not rely on training data for eve behavior. Use this source hierarchy:
- Current source, public types, and tests in
packages/eve - Current CLI help and setup implementation
- Existing pages under
docs/ - Merged pull requests, changelogs, and release notes
- Research plans under
research/as proposed intent, not shipped behavior - Support evidence such as Slack threads or issues
Use support evidence to identify the reader's problem, not to establish product behavior. Verify commands, flags, API names, defaults, limitations, and examples against the current repository. For a docs-only change, also compare the implementation with the latest public release so the docs do not announce branch-only behavior. When docs accompany product code in the same change, state that dependency during review. If a claim cannot be verified, omit it or report the missing owner or source. Never leave [VERIFY] markers in a completed docs change.
