/technical-writing

name: technical-writing
description: "Layered technical-writing standard: Diátaxis structure, Google developer style sentences, STE instruction rules, Global English syntax. Use for /technical-writing or when writing or reviewing docs, RFCs, readmes, PR descriptions, or commit messages."
disable-model-invocation: true

Technical writing

Write so a tired engineer understands on the first read. Apply all four layers.

Three rules sit above the layers:

• **Cut every word that does no work.** If the sentence survives without a word, the word goes. "In order to" is "to". "It is important to note that" is nothing.
• **Use the short, everyday word.** "Use", not "utilize". "Help", not "facilitate". "Do", not "perform". A long word has to buy its length with precision.
• **When a rule makes a sentence worse, fix the sentence another way or leave it alone.** A sentence that follows every rule and sounds like a machine wrote it has failed.

The codebase is the word list. Write the real symbol, file, flag, or command name, not a synonym or a description of it.

Don't invent jargon. Use the words a developer would say out loud: "move", "delete", "a budget that only decreases", not "evacuate", "ratchet", or "endgame". A named pattern is fine when the doc says what it means the first time. Propose a new offender and its replacement as an addition to `unslop`'s abstract-metaphor rule in your reply, with the diff. Don't edit that skill.

Vary the rhythm

A doc can obey every layer and still read machine-written: every sentence clipped short, no view anywhere, nothing specific.

• Mix sentence lengths on purpose. Short sentences land a point. Longer ones carry a fact with its condition or consequence.
• One thought per sentence does not mean one length per sentence. Split the sentence that carries two thoughts. Keep the long sentence that carries one.
• Have a view where the mode allows it. Explanation weighs trade-offs, so say what you make of them instead of listing pros and cons. Reference stays dry.
• Be specific over sterile. Not "schema changes can cause issues" but "a column rename fails the build".

Pick the mode first (Diátaxis)

One document, one mode. Two questions pick it: does the content inform action (doing) or understanding (thinking), and does it serve learning or work?

• Action + learning: **tutorial**.
• Action + work: **how-to**.
• Understanding + work: **reference**.
• Understanding + learning: **explanation**.

Use the compass on a whole document or on one sentence.

**Tutorial: learning by doing.** The learner's success is your job, not theirs. Open by saying what the learner will build, not what they will "learn". Every step produces a visible result, early and often. Tell them what they should see: the expected output, the prompt change, the log line. Cut explanation to one clause and a link. Stay concrete. Write as "we", in commands: "First, do x. Now, do y."

**How-to: steps to a goal.** Solve a problem a person has, not an operation the machine can perform. Assume competence and skip teaching. Action only: no digressions, no background, no completeness for its own sake. Link those instead. Allow forks and judgment: "If you want x, do y." Name the guide by the task: "How to calibrate the radar array", not "Radar array calibration".

**Reference: facts for lookup.** Only describe. No instruction, no persuasion, no opinion. Be dry, complete, and sure. State facts, options, limits, and errors with no hedging. Mirror the structure of the thing described, so code and docs can be navigated together. Put material where readers expect it. Generate from code where possible.

**Explanation: understanding and why.** One bounded topic, readable away from the product. Each title should tolerate an implicit "About..." in front. Anchor on a real why question. Give context: design decisions, history, constraints, alternatives. Opinion is allowed here and nowhere else.

Don't mix modes: no reference tables inside a tutorial, no tutorial hand-holding inside reference, no arguing inside a how-to. Split and link instead.

Write sentences to the reader (Google developer style)

• Talk to the reader as "you", in the present tense. "Will" only for things that genuinely happen later.
• Say who does what: "the compiler checks", not "is checked". Passive is fine only when the actor is unknown or beside the point.
• Write instructions as commands: "Click Submit." State facts plainly. Never "should be done".
• Put the condition before the instruction: "To delete the document, click Delete."
• Put the common case first. Exceptions after.
• Sound like a knowledgeable friend. No buzzwords, no figurative language, no "please" in instructions, and never "simply", "easy", or "quickly" in a procedure. If it were simple, the reader would not be here.
• Don't pre-announce ("we will soon support...") and don't start consecutive sentences with the same phrase.
• Link with words that say where the link goes: the page title or a short description. Never "click here". Prefer a sentence of context on the page over a link off it.
• Headings carry the point, not just the topic ("Pick the mode first", not "Modes"). Sentence case. A task heading is a bare verb phrase ("Create an instance"). A concept heading is a noun phrase. One h1 per page, no skipped levels.
• Numbered lists for sequences, bullets for everything else. Introduce a list with a complete sentence. Keep items parallel.
• Code goes in code font. UI elements go in bold. Use serial commas. Drop "etc." and say up front that a list is partial.

Make statements load one at a time (STE rules)

• One instruction per sentence. One thought per sentence everywhere else.
• Split instructions longer than about 20 words and other sentences longer than about 25.
• Put the warning or condition before the step it guards: "If hot oil touches your skin, injuries can occur."
• Keep "the" and "a": "Remove backup file" reads two ways. "Remove the backup fil