Specify a webhook-driven task for OpenClaw
Describe event inputs, validation, deduplication, and intended actions before integration work.
5,471,078 AI resources indexedWorking toward the world’s largest AI resource index.
Audit top-level documentation (README, SPEC, PRODUCT) against recent git history to find drift — shipped features missing from docs or features listed as upcoming that already landed. Proposes minimal edits, creates a branch, and opens a PR. Use when asked to review docs for accuracy, after major...
--- name: doc-maintenance-b420810f4ca2 description: > Audit top-level documentation (README, SPEC, PRODUCT) against recent git history to find drift — shipped features missing from docs or features listed as upcoming that already landed. Proposes minimal edits, creates a branch, and opens a PR. Use when asked to review docs for accuracy, after major feature merges, or on a periodic schedule. --- # Doc Maintenance Skill Detect documentation drift and fix it via PR — no rewrites, no churn. ## When to Use - Periodic doc review (e.g. weekly or after releases) - After major feature merges - When asked "are our docs up to date?" - When asked to audit README / SPEC / PRODUCT accuracy ## Target Documents | Document | Path | What matters | |----------|------|-------------| | README | `README.md` | Features table, roadmap, quickstart, "what is" accuracy, "works with" table | | SPEC | `doc/SPEC.md` | No false "not supported" claims, major model/schema accuracy | | PRODUCT | `doc/PRODUCT.md` | Core concepts, feature list, principles accuracy | Out of scope: DEVELOPING.md, DATABASE.md, CLI.md, doc/plans/, skill files, release notes. These are dev-facing or ephemeral — lower risk of user-facing confusion. ## Workflow ### Step 1 — Detect what changed Find the last review cursor: ```bash # Read the last-reviewed commit SHA CURSOR_FILE=".doc-review-cursor" if [ -f "$CURSOR_FILE" ]; then LAST_SHA=$(cat "$CURSOR_FILE" | head -1) else # First run: look back 60 days LAST_SHA=$(git log --format="%H" --after="60 days ago" --reverse | head -1) fi ``` Then gather commits since the cursor: ```bash git log "$LAST_SHA"..HEAD --oneline --no-merges ``` ### Step 2 — Classify changes Scan commit messages and changed files. Categorize into: - **Feature** — new capabilities (keywords: `feat`, `add`, `implement`, `support`) - **Breaking** — removed/renamed things (keywords: `remove`, `breaking`, `drop`, `rename`) - **Structural** — new directories, config changes, new adapters, new CLI commands **Ignore:** refactors, test-only changes, CI config, dependency bumps, doc-only changes, style/formatting commits. These don't affect doc accuracy. For borderline cases, check the actual diff — a commit titled "refactor: X" that adds a new public API is a feature. ### Step 3 — Build a change summary Produce a concise list like: ``` Since last review (<sha>, <date>): - FEATURE: Plugin system merged (runtime, SDK, CLI, slots, event bridge) - FEATURE: Project archiving added - BREAKING: Removed legacy webhook adapter - STRUCTURAL: New .agents/skills/ directory convention ``` If there are no notable changes, skip to Step 7 (update cursor and exit). ### Step 4 — Audit each target doc For each target document, read it fully and cross-reference against the change summary. Check for: 1. **False negatives** — major shipped features not mentioned at all 2. **False positives** — features listed as "coming soon" / "roadmap" / "planned" / "not supported" / "TBD" that already shipped 3. **Quickstart accuracy** — install commands, prereqs, and startup instructions still correct (README only) 4. **Feature table accuracy** — does the features section reflect current capabilities? (README only) 5. **Works-with accuracy** — are supported adapters/integrations listed correctly? Use `references/audit-checklist.md` as the structured checklist. Use `references/section-map.md` to know where to look for each feature area. ### Step 5 — Create branch and apply minimal edits ```bash # Create a branch for the doc updates BRANCH="docs/maintenance-$(date +%Y%m%d)" git checkout -b "$BRANCH" ``` Apply **only** the edits needed to fix drift. Rules: - **Minimal patches only.** Fix inaccuracies, don't rewrite sections. - **Preserve voice and style.** Match the existing tone of each document. - **No cosmetic changes.** Don't fix typos, reformat tables, or reorganize sections unless they're part of a factual fix. - **No new sections.** If a feature needs a whole new section, note it in the PR description as a follow-up — don't add it in a maintenance pass. - **Roadmap items:** Move shipped features out of Roadmap. Add a brief mention in the appropriate existing section if there isn't one already. Don't add long descriptions. ### Step 6 — Open a PR Commit the changes and open a PR: ```bash git add README.md doc/SPEC.md doc/PRODUCT.md .doc-review-cursor git commit -m "docs: update documentation for accuracy - [list each fix briefly] Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>" git push -u origin "$BRANCH" gh pr create \ --title "docs: periodic documentation accuracy update" \ --body "$(cat <<'EOF' ## Summary Automated doc maintenance pass. Fixes documentation drift detected since last review. ### Changes - [list each fix] ### Change summary (since last review) - [list notable code changes that triggered doc updates] ## Review notes - Only factual accuracy fixes — no style/cosmetic changes - Preserves existing voice and structure - Larger doc additions (new sections, tutorials) noted as follow-ups 🤖 Generated by doc-maintenance skill EOF )" ``` ### Step 7 — Update the cursor After a successful audit (whether or not edits were needed), update the cursor: ```bash git rev-parse HEAD > .doc-review-cursor ``` If edits were made, this is already committed in the PR branch. If no edits were needed, commit the cursor update to the current branch. ## Change Classification Rules | Signal | Category | Doc update needed? | |--------|----------|-------------------| | `feat:`, `add`, `implement`, `support` in message | Feature | Yes if user-facing | | `remove`, `drop`, `breaking`, `!:` in message | Breaking | Yes | | New top-level directory or config file | Structural | Maybe | | `fix:`, `bugfix` | Fix | No (unless it changes behavior described in docs) | | `refactor:`, `chore:`, `ci:`, `test:` | Maintenance | No | | `docs:` | Doc change | No (already handled) | | Dependency bumps only | Maintenance | No | ## Patch Style Guide - Fix the fact, not the prose - If removing a roadmap item, don't leave a gap — remove the bullet cleanly - If adding a feature mention, match the format of surrounding entries (e.g. if features are in a table, add a table row) - Keep README changes especially minimal — it shouldn't churn often - For SPEC/PRODUCT, prefer updating existing statements over adding new ones (e.g. change "not supported in V1" to "supported via X" rather than adding a new section) ## Output When the skill completes, report: - How many commits were scanned - How many notable changes were found - How many doc edits were made (and to which files) - PR link (if edits were made) - Any follow-up items that need larger doc work--- name: doc-maintenance-b420810f4ca2 description: > Audit top-level documentation (README, SPEC, PRODUCT) against recent git history to find drift — shipped features missing from docs or features listed as upcoming that already landed. Proposes minimal edits, creates a branch, and opens a PR. Use when asked to review docs for accuracy, after major feature merges, or on a periodic schedule. --- # Doc Maintenance Skill Detect documentation drift and fix it via PR — no rewrites, no churn. ## When to Use - Periodic doc review (e.g. weekly or after releases) - After major feature merges - When asked "are our docs up to date?" - When asked to audit README / SPEC / PRODUCT accuracy ## Target Documents | Document | Path | What matters | |----------|------|-------------| | README | `README.md` | Features table, roadmap, quickstart, "what is" accuracy, "works with" table | | SPEC | `doc/SPEC.md` | No false "not supported" claims, major model/schema accuracy | | PRODUCT | `doc/PRODUCT.md` | Core concepts, feature list, principles accuracy | Out of scope: DEVELOPING.md, DATABASE.md, CLI.md, doc/plans/, skill files, release notes. These are dev-facing or ephemeral — lower risk of user-facing confusion. ## Workflow ### Step 1 — Detect what changed Find the last review cursor: ```bash # Read the last-reviewed commit SHA CURSOR_FILE=".doc-review-cursor" if [ -f "$CURSOR_FILE" ]; then LAST_SHA=$(cat "$CURSOR_FILE" | head -1) else # First run: look back 60 days LAST_SHA=$(git log --format="%H" --after="60 days ago" --reverse | head -1) fi ``` Then gather commits since the cursor: ```bash git log "$LAST_SHA"..HEAD --oneline --no-merges ``` ### Step 2 — Classify changes Scan commit messages and changed files. Categorize into: - **Feature** — new capabilities (keywords: `feat`, `add`, `implement`, `support`) - **Breaking** — removed/renamed things (keywords: `remove`, `breaking`, `drop`, `rename`) - **Structural** — new directories, config changes, new adapters, new CLI commands **Ignore:** refactors, test-only changes, CI config, dependency bumps, doc-only changes, style/formatting commits. These don't affect doc accuracy. For borderline cases, check the actual diff — a commit titled "refactor: X" that adds a new public API is a feature. ### Step 3 — Build a change summary Produce a concise list like: ``` Since last review (<sha>, <date>): - FEATURE: Plugin system merged (runtime, SDK, CLI, slots, event bridge) - FEATURE: Project archiving added - BREAKING: Removed legacy webhook adapter - STRUCTURAL: New .agents/skills/ directory convention ``` If there are no notable changes, skip to Step 7 (update cursor and exit). ### Step 4 — Audit each target doc For each target document, read it fully and cross-reference against the change summary. Check for: 1. **False negatives** — major shipped features not mentioned at all 2. **False positives** — features listed as "coming soon" / "roadmap" / "planned" / "not supported" / "TBD" that already shipped 3. **Quickstart accuracy** — install commands, prereqs, and startup instructions still correct (README only) 4. **Feature table accuracy** — does the features section reflect current capabilities? (README only) 5. **Works-with accuracy** — are supported adapters/integrations listed correctly? Use `references/audit-checklist.md` as the structured checklist. Use `references/section-map.md` to know where to look for each feature area. ### Step 5 — Create branch and apply minimal edits ```bash # Create a branch for the doc updates BRANCH="docs/maintenance-$(date +%Y%m%d)" git checkout -b "$BRANCH" ``` Apply **only** the edits needed to fix drift. Rules: - **Minimal patches only.** Fix inaccuracies, don't rewrite sections. - **Preserve voice and style.** Match the existing tone of each document. - **No cosmetic changes.** Don't fix typos, reformat tables, or reorganize sections unless they're part of a factual fix. - **No new sections.** If a feature needs a whole new section, note it in the PR description as a follow-up — don't add it in a maintenance pass. - **Roadmap items:** Move shipped features out of Roadmap. Add a brief mention in the appropriate existing section if there isn't one already. Don't add long descriptions. ### Step 6 — Open a PR Commit the changes and open a PR: ```bash git add README.md doc/SPEC.md doc/PRODUCT.md .doc-review-cursor git commit -m "docs: update documentation for accuracy - [list each fix briefly] Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>" git push -u origin "$BRANCH" gh pr create \ --title "docs: periodic documentation accuracy update" \ --body "$(cat <<'EOF' ## Summary Automated doc maintenance pass. Fixes documentation drift detected since last review. ### Changes - [list each fix] ### Change summary (since last review) - [list notable code changes that triggered doc updates] ## Review notes - Only factual accuracy fixes — no style/cosmetic changes - Preserves existing voice and structure - Larger doc additions (new sections, tutorials) noted as follow-ups 🤖 Generated by doc-maintenance skill EOF )" ``` ### Step 7 — Update the cursor After a successful audit (whether or not edits were needed), update the cursor: ```bash git rev-parse HEAD > .doc-review-cursor ``` If edits were made, this is already committed in the PR branch. If no edits were needed, commit the cursor update to the current branch. ## Change Classification Rules | Signal | Category | Doc update needed? | |--------|----------|-------------------| | `feat:`, `add`, `implement`, `support` in message | Feature | Yes if user-facing | | `remove`, `drop`, `breaking`, `!:` in message | Breaking | Yes | | New top-level directory or config file | Structural | Maybe | | `fix:`, `bugfix` | Fix | No (unless it changes behavior described in docs) | | `refactor:`, `chore:`, `ci:`, `test:` | Maintenance | No | | `docs:` | Doc change | No (already handled) | | Dependency bumps only | Maintenance | No | ## Patch Style Guide - Fix the fact, not the prose - If removing a roadmap item, don't leave a gap — remove the bullet cleanly - If adding a feature mention, match the format of surrounding entries (e.g. if features are in a table, add a table row) - Keep README changes especially minimal — it shouldn't churn often - For SPEC/PRODUCT, prefer updating existing statements over adding new ones (e.g. change "not supported in V1" to "supported via X" rather than adding a new section) ## Output When the skill completes, report: - How many commits were scanned - How many notable changes were found - How many doc edits were made (and to which files) - PR link (if edits were made) - Any follow-up items that need larger doc work
Imported from the listed AgentSkill.sh category. Complete supplied package files and notices are retained. Required external tools and credentials are not installed. No bundled code was executed during import. Individual agent task behavior has not been tested.