plugins/muna-wiki-management/skills/using-wiki-manager/SKILL.md
Use when managing multi-document sets as wikis - manifest-driven architecture, reading paths, derivation discipline, terminology/claim consistency, change evolution, and governance for standards suites, policy frameworks, and technical documentation collections
npx skillsauth add tachyon-beep/skillpacks using-wiki-managerInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
This meta-skill routes you to the right document set management skills based on your task. Load this skill when you need to create, organize, maintain, or audit a collection of interrelated documents.
Core Principle: Managing a document set is a different discipline from writing a document. Individual document quality is necessary but not sufficient — the set must be consistent, navigable, self-sufficient at each depth tier, and maintainable over time.
Load this skill when:
Don't use for: Writing a single standalone document (use muna-technical-writer instead). Panel-testing documents with simulated readers (use muna-panel-review instead).
IMPORTANT: All reference sheets are located in the SAME DIRECTORY as this SKILL.md file.
When this skill is loaded from:
skills/using-wiki-manager/SKILL.md
Reference sheets like content-derivation.md are at:
skills/using-wiki-manager/content-derivation.md
NOT at:
skills/content-derivation.md ← WRONG PATH
When you see a link like [content-derivation.md](content-derivation.md), read the file from the same directory as this SKILL.md.
Symptoms: "I have documents but no structure", "How do I organize these?", "Bootstrap", "Get started with existing docs", "We have a standards suite but no manifest"
Use command: /onboard-docset if available, or follow this sequence manually.
Route to: Skills in order (matches /onboard-docset step sequence):
The onboarding workflow builds registries from the documents rather than requiring them upfront. Start with minimum viable versions and grow through use.
Symptoms: "Starting from scratch", "New documentation suite", "Greenfield", "Planning a multi-document standards effort"
Route to: Skills in sequential order:
document-evolution.md activates after the first version of the set is published.
Symptoms: Specific maintenance tasks on an existing, structured document set.
| User intent | Route to | |---|---| | Add or restructure a document | document-set-architecture.md | | Add a persona, check coverage, fix a dead-end path | reading-path-design.md | | Write or update a derivative document | content-derivation.md | | Fix terminology, verify claims, check links | cross-document-consistency.md | | Respond to upstream change (root document or external standard) | document-evolution.md | | Set up review workflows, assign ownership, run quality gates | document-governance.md |
Symptoms: "I updated the paper", "Root document changed", "Propagate changes", "Section X of the spec was rewritten"
Use command: /propagate-change if available, or chain manually:
This is the workhorse workflow — more targeted than a full audit, avoids overkill.
Symptoms: "Check everything", "Audit", "Health check", "Pre-publish review", "Quarterly review"
Use command: /audit-docset if available, or run in sequence:
Output: unified defect list, triaged by priority (P1 wrong info → P2 degraded navigation → P3 friction).
Use both when you need set-level structure AND individual document quality:
Example: "Write a new CISO Assessment for our standards suite" → Load wiki-manager for the derivation recipe and self-sufficiency contract, load technical-writer for the document's internal structure and clarity.
Wiki Manager ensures the set is structurally sound before testing. Panel Review tests how documents land with audiences after structure is in place.
The wiki-manager Persona Registry can feed panel-review's persona definitions: export the persona's task, depth tolerance, and domain vocabulary as the scenario framing for a panel-review session.
| Skill | Covers | |---|---| | document-set-architecture.md | Manifest, derivation graph, depth tiers, multi-root reconciliation, conflict resolution | | reading-path-design.md | Persona registry, path completeness, coverage matrix, time-based paths, stepping stone validation | | content-derivation.md | Derivation modes, recipes, self-sufficiency test, deferral audit — the anti-laziness discipline | | cross-document-consistency.md | Terminology/claim registries, granularity heuristics, link integrity, consistency audit, triage | | document-evolution.md | Change classification, impact traces, git integration, external dependencies, deprecation | | document-governance.md | Ownership model, LLM-as-steward trust model, quality gates, review triggers |
Wrong: Load all 6 reference sheets for every document set task. Right: Use the routing table above. A derivative update needs content-derivation.md and maybe governance. A terminology fix needs cross-document-consistency.md only.
Wrong: Jump straight to writing derivatives without declaring the document set structure. Right: Start with document-set-architecture.md. The manifest is the foundation everything else references.
Wrong: "Summarize the paper for executives" → write a shorter version. Right: "Derive an executive brief from the paper using distillation mode" → follow the derivation recipe, run the self-sufficiency test, audit deferrals. Derivation is a discipline, not a writing task.
Wrong: Run a consistency audit by reading all documents and checking for problems. Right: Build the terminology and claim registries first (even minimum viable versions), then audit against them. Without registries, you have no objective standard to audit against.
Starting a document set task?
├─ Do the documents have a manifest?
│ ├─ No → Pattern 0: Onboard (document-set-architecture first)
│ └─ Yes
│ ├─ What are you doing?
│ │ ├─ Writing/updating a derivative → content-derivation
│ │ ├─ Root document changed → Pattern 3: Change propagation
│ │ ├─ Adding a persona/fixing paths → reading-path-design
│ │ ├─ Fixing terminology/claims/links → cross-document-consistency
│ │ ├─ Setting up ownership/review process → document-governance
│ │ └─ Full health check → Pattern 4: Full audit
│ └─ Creating a new document set? → Pattern 1: Sequential setup
tools
Use when designing, implementing, or auditing an MCP (Model Context Protocol) server — tool API design, idempotency under agent retry, structured error envelopes agents can recover from, schema versioning across model drift, transport reliability (stdio / HTTP), output-shape and pagination discipline, and choosing between tools / resources / prompts / sampling. Also use when an MCP server's tools confuse agents, return unstructured errors, deadlock under concurrent calls, double-execute under retry, or lose state across reconnects. Do not use for general REST/GraphQL API design (use `/web-backend`), for client-side prompt engineering or tool-loop design (use `/llm-specialist`), for general in-process plugin architecture (use `/system-architect`), or for cryptographic-provenance audit trails (use `/audit-pipelines`).
development
Use when running **SQLite or DuckDB inside an application process** as the durable store — not as a development convenience but as the production database. Use when scaling an SQLite layer that worked at low concurrency and is now hitting SQLITE_BUSY, WAL bloat, lock contention, schema-migration ceremony, or correctness gaps under multi-process writers. Use when introducing DuckDB as an OLAP complement to an OLTP SQLite store, or when picking between the two for a new component. Pairs with `/web-backend` (the API surface above the DB) and `/audit-pipelines` (when the DB is also the audit trail). Do not load for server databases (Postgres, MySQL), key-value stores, or ORM choice in isolation.
development
Use when designing or critiquing the structure of a staged procedure — a wizard, configuration flow, troubleshooting tree, training curriculum, multi-stage approval pipeline, decision pipeline, or any decomposition of expert work into composable stages. Use for both producer work (build the decomposition) and critic work (audit a proposed decomposition). Use when reasoning about capacity, bottlenecks, or soundness of a procedural flow. Do not use for implementation-plan critique of code changes (use `/axiom-planning` instead), for execution-time dynamics (use `/simulation-foundations`), or for rendering an already-designed procedure as docs or UI (use `/technical-writer` or `/ux-designer`).
testing
Use when the user wants to draft fiction or creative nonfiction prose, get craft critique on prose they have written, or plan story structure, outline, or premise. Workshop-voiced. Three explicit modes (draft, critique, plan) and the router will refuse to begin work without a declared mode.