Mode d’emploi
- Copiez la commande et examinez le paquet avant de l’installer dans votre environnement agent.
- Consultez le document original pour les outils, identifiants et environnements requis.
- Décrivez les entrées et le livrable souhaité ; comparez la sortie aux sources.
npx skills add https://github.com/majesticlabs-dev/majestic-marketplace --skill document-refinementAvant de commencer
- L’installation n’inclut ni abonnement au modèle, ni quota API, ni accès aux fichiers.
- Étoiles et installations reflètent l’activité, pas un test indépendant de qualité ou de sécurité.
Document Skill original
Rendu depuis le dépôt source en conservant titres, exemples, code, tableaux, liens et images.
Document Refinement
Structured review to answer: "Is this document clear and ready for the next phase?"
Audience: Engineers reviewing brainstorm outputs, plans, or PRDs before handoff. Goal: Catch vagueness and gaps early. Auto-fix minor issues, flag substantive ones.
Assessment Criteria
Score each 1-5:
| Criterion | 1 (Fail) | 3 (Acceptable) | 5 (Excellent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity | Vague language, undefined terms | Mostly clear, few ambiguities | Every statement is actionable and specific |
| Completeness | Missing required sections | Has all sections, some thin | All sections substantive with no gaps |
| Specificity | "Handle errors appropriately" | Some concrete details | Exact behaviors, values, and boundaries defined |
| YAGNI | Speculative features, gold-plating | Minor scope creep | Every item traces to a stated requirement |
| User Intent Fidelity | Drifted from original request | Mostly aligned | Precisely captures what user asked for |
Review Protocol
DOCUMENT = read target document
DOC_TYPE = classify(DOCUMENT) → brainstorm | plan | prd | other
REQUIREMENTS = load references/document-type-requirements.md[DOC_TYPE]
VAGUE_PATTERNS = load references/vague-language-patterns.md
Step 1: Structural Check
For each REQUIRED_SECTION in REQUIREMENTS[DOC_TYPE].sections:
If REQUIRED_SECTION missing from DOCUMENT:
findings.blocking.append({type: "missing_section", section: REQUIRED_SECTION})
Step 2: Vagueness Scan
For each LINE in DOCUMENT:
If LINE matches VAGUE_PATTERNS.qualifier_words OR VAGUE_PATTERNS.hedge_phrases:
If context is risk-identification OR explicit-deferral:
skip (acceptable vagueness)
Else if fix is obvious (simple word replacement):
auto_fixes.append({line: LINE, fix: replacement})
Else:
findings.blocking.append({type: "vague_language", line: LINE, suggestion: "specify X"})
Step 3: Criteria Scoring
For each CRITERION in [Clarity, Completeness, Specificity, YAGNI, User Intent Fidelity]:
score[CRITERION] = assess(DOCUMENT, CRITERION) → 1-5
If score[CRITERION] < 3:
findings.blocking.append({type: "low_score", criterion: CRITERION, details: "..."})
Step 4: Categorize Findings
blocking = findings where score < 3 OR missing required sections
polish = findings where score 3-4 (improvable but not blocking)Output Format
markdown
## Document Refinement Report
**Document:** [filename or title]
**Type:** [brainstorm | plan | prd]
**Verdict:** READY | NEEDS REVISION
### Scores
| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Clarity | X/5 | ... |
| Completeness | X/5 | ... |
| Specificity | X/5 | ... |
| YAGNI | X/5 | ... |
| User Intent Fidelity | X/5 | ... |
### Auto-Fixed (applied)
- [Line X]: "should handle" → "returns 422 with error message"
### Blocking Issues
1. [Issue]: [What's wrong] → [What to specify]
### Polish Suggestions
- [Improvement that would raise score but isn't blocking]Iteration Rules
MAX_ROUNDS = 2
If VERDICT == "NEEDS REVISION":
Apply auto-fixes directly to document
Present blocking issues to user
User addresses blocking issues
Re-run assessment (round 2)
If round 2 still has blocking issues:
Present remaining issues
Ask user: "Ship as-is or address remaining items?"
Do NOT run round 3 (diminishing returns)Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Why It's Wrong | Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewing implementation code | This skill is for documents, not code | Use code-review or plan-review |
| Scoring every line | Over-analysis kills velocity | Focus on section-level assessment |
| Blocking on style preferences | "I'd phrase it differently" isn't a gap | Only block on missing information or ambiguity |
| Expanding scope during review | "You should also add X" | Only flag what's missing per doc-type requirements |
| Perfect scores required | 3/5 on all criteria = ready to proceed | Block only on scores below 3 |
