Doc Co-Authoring Workflow
Collaborative documentation co-authoring workflow. Three phases: Context Gathering → Refinement & Structure → Reader Testing.
When to Offer This Workflow
Trigger Conditions:
- User mentions writing articles, writing documentation, or co-authoring
- User provides materials and requests content creation
After briefly explaining the workflow, start directly without over-explaining.
Stage 1: Context Gathering
Goal: Quickly gather sufficient context, including content direction and writing style.
Meta Information (Mandatory Questions)
- Document type? (WeChat Official Account post/ Xiaohongshu post/ technical documentation/ proposal)
- Target audience?
- Expected outcome after reading?
- Your personal viewpoint/angle?
- Length and style?
Writing Style Preferences (Mandatory Questions)
Key: Confirm the style in advance to avoid repeated revisions later.
Ask the user:
- Do you have reference materials? (If yes, analyze their style first and follow it)
- Prefer concise or detailed content?
- Are there any writing habits that need to be followed?
Reference Material Style Analysis
If the user provides reference materials:
First read and analyze their writing style:
- Sentence structure characteristics (short sentences dominant? long sentences dominant?)
- Structural approach (with subheadings? paragraph length?)
- Tone (colloquial? formal?)
- Patterns to avoid
After analysis, inform the user: "Reference material style has been learned, and subsequent writing will follow it."
Common Writing Anti-Patterns (Avoid by Default)
Unless explicitly requested by the user, avoid:
- Rhetorical question and answer structure: ❌ "What does this mean? It means..." → ✅ State directly
- Excessive comparison: ❌ Repeated use of "not...but..." → ✅ Directly state what it is
- Case segmentation with subheadings: ❌ Bold headings for each case → ✅ Merge into a smooth narrative
- Rhetorical question opening: ❌ "Why is this the case?" → ✅ Directly state the reason
- Repetitive summaries: ❌ "In summary, to sum up, this means" → ✅ Omit or simplify
- Over-explanation: ❌ Expand on every concept → ✅ Assume readers have basic knowledge
When the user says "too verbose", simplify immediately without explanation.
Material Processing
If the user provides material files:
- Read directly
- Extract key information
- Do not ask excessive questions; proceed directly to the next stage
If additional information is needed:
- Search the internet for popular viewpoints, cases, and data
- Proactively search; do not ask "do you want to search" every time
Exit Conditions
After the user answers the meta information questions, proceed directly to Stage 2 without repeated confirmation.
Stage 2: Refinement & Structure
Goal: Brainstorm, filter, write, and iterate chapter by chapter.
Determine Structure
Suggest 3-6 chapters based on the document type, create a file framework (Markdown file), and use
as a placeholder.
Per-Chapter Workflow
Step 1: Brainstorm
List 8-15 possible points to include, presented with numbers.
**N possible points to include:**
1. xxx
2. xxx
...
**Which to keep?** For example: `1, 3, 5, 7`
Step 2: Filter
After the user responds with their selection:
- If the user says "all" or "1-N": Adopt all directly without further confirmation
- If the user selects some: Only use the selected ones
- Do not ask "are you sure?"; proceed directly to writing
Step 3: Write
Write the chapter based on the filtered results and update the file directly.
After writing:
- Display the chapter content in a blockquote format
- Briefly ask: "Any revisions needed? If not, let's 'continue'"
Step 4: Iterate
Rules for handling user feedback:
| User says | Action |
|---|
| "Continue" | Proceed to the next chapter |
| "Too verbose" | Simplify immediately without explanation |
| "Don't use xxx structure" | Remember and follow for subsequent chapters |
| Specific revision suggestions | Implement the revisions and display the results |
Iterate quickly. Revise immediately after receiving user feedback and display the revised content right away; do not provide long explanations.
Style Learning
Remember the user's style preferences during iteration:
- What the user deleted → Avoid in subsequent content
- If the user says "too verbose" → Be more concise in subsequent content
- If the user says "no rhetorical questions" → Avoid in all chapters
After Completing All Chapters
Output the full text for the user to read through, and ask if adjustments are needed.
Stage 3: Reader Testing (Optional)
Goal: Check if the document is clear from a fresh perspective.
Only execute if requested by the user, or suggest it if the document is long/complex.
Execution Method
- Predict 5-10 possible questions readers may have
- Use a sub-agent or suggest the user start a new conversation for testing
- If issues are found, return to Stage 2 to fix them
Core Principles
Efficiency First
- Do not confirm repeatedly; execute as soon as the user states their request
- If the user selects "all" after brainstorming, use all points directly
- Iterate quickly; display revised content immediately after revision
Consistent Style
- Follow the style determined in the first chapter for all subsequent chapters
- Remember the user's revision feedback and apply it to similar situations
Concise Expression
- Display content using blockquotes for brevity
- Use one-sentence transition phrases: "Continue?" "Any revisions needed?"
- Do not provide long explanations of the workflow
Quick Response to Common Feedback
| User says | Action immediately taken |
|---|
| "Too verbose" | Simplify by 50% without explanation |
| "No rhetorical questions" | Rewrite to remove all rhetorical questions |
| "Merge into one piece" | Remove subheadings and write a smooth narrative |
| "Continue" | Proceed to the next chapter |
| "Output full text" | Read the file and display it in full |