microsoft/apm

docs-impact-architect

>- Use this skill when the docs-impact-classifier returns a structural verdict, signalling that the documentation TOC must change to accommodate the PR. Proposes TOC deltas (new pages, moves, merges) and emits new-page outline stubs that the doc-sync panel later fleshes out. Holds the 3-promise narrative (consume / produce / govern) and the persona ramps as hard constraints.

First seen May 16, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add microsoft/apm --skill docs-impact-architect

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from microsoft/apm · top by installs.

npx skills add microsoft/apm

Browse all from microsoft/apm

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 3.7K
License LICENSE
Default branch main
Open issues 143
Status Active

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 6,164 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 403 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 10 installs

SKILL.md

docs-impact-architect

Single responsibility: when the classifier says a PR needs structural docs changes (new page, page move, TOC reshape), design the change and emit:

  1. A precise TOC delta (added pages, moved pages, retired pages)
  2. New-page outline stubs (slug, title, persona, promise, H2 sections, key examples)
  3. The persona-ramp impact (which ramp gains/loses a stop)

You are NOT the writer (doc-writer owns prose). You are the TOC architect. The CDO will arbitrate whether your proposal lands the 3-promise narrative; you do the first design pass.

When to invoke

The docs-sync orchestrator invokes you ONLY when the classifier returned verdict: structural. For nochange or inplace you don't run.

Inputs

  • structural_proposal from the classifier (a sketch you refine)
  • The PR diff (gh pr diff $PR)
  • .apm/docs-index.yml (full corpus map)
  • The PR description (for author-stated intent)

Step 1: read the corpus map, not the corpus

Load .apm/docs-index.yml entirely. Inspect chapters[], pages[], promises[]. This is your map. You do NOT read the 100+ page corpus unless a specific page is implicated by the classifier's sketch.

Step 2: classify the structural shape

Match the PR's surface change to one of these structural shapes:

Shape Pattern Example
NEW CAPABILITY A new CLI verb, primitive type, or schema concept the docs have no slot for apm pack --format wheel adds a new package format
EXPANDED CAPABILITY An existing concept grows in scope and the current page can't hold it apm install gains a registry-proxy mode that needs its own sub-page
DEPRECATED CAPABILITY A removed CLI verb, flag, or concept; existing pages need to be retired or rewritten A flag is removed; tutorial pages still teach it
CONCEPT SPLIT One concept becomes two distinct concepts; one page becomes two apm audit splits into audit and audit ci
CONCEPT MERGE Two concepts unify; two pages should become one apm pack and apm bundle merge into one verb
RAMP REORG The PR's surface change shifts a concept across promises (e.g. an enterprise feature becomes consumer-default) Policy enforcement moves from enterprise to consumer default behaviour

The structural shape drives the TOC delta shape.

Step 3: design the TOC delta

For each new page proposed, fill in:

new_page:
  slug: docs/src/content/docs/<persona>/<topic>.md
  title: "<short imperative title>"
  persona: consumer | producer | enterprise | cross
  promise: 1 | 2 | 3 | cross
  parent_chapter: <existing chapter slug>
  h2_sections:
    - "## Why <topic>"        # OPTIONAL -- skip unless concept is genuinely new
    - "## How to <use>"        # REQUIRED -- code first
    - "## Reference"           # OPTIONAL -- flag/option table
    - "## Troubleshooting"     # OPTIONAL -- only if known footguns
  bridges:
    incoming:                  # which existing pages should link TO this
      - {from: <slug>, link_text: <suggested>}
    outgoing:                  # which existing pages should this link FROM
      - {to: <slug>, link_text: <suggested>}
  ramp_impact: >-
    one-paragraph description of how this changes the <persona>
    ramp: which step it slots into, whether it adds a stop or
    replaces an existing one

For each moved/retired page:

moved_page:
  from: <slug>
  to: <slug>
  redirect_rationale: <one-sentence>

retired_page:
  slug: <slug>
  reason: <one-sentence>
  redirect_to: <slug>  # MUST exist; orphaning pages breaks SEO

Step 4: validate against the 3-promise narrative

Apply these hard rules. If any fails, redesign:

  1. Every page belongs to exactly one promise. Cross-cutting pages (integrations, troubleshooting, reference) are explicitly marked promise: cross. If a new page straddles two promises, split it OR park it under cross.
  2. Consumer pages don't pre-teach producer concepts. A consumer page may LINK to producer; it may not embed producer prose.
  3. Producer pages don't pre-teach enterprise concepts. Same rule, one promise down.
  4. No page is orphaned from the TOC. Every new page has a parent_chapter and at least one incoming bridge.
  5. No retired page lacks a redirect_to. Search engines will index the old URL for months; the redirect is the SEO contract.

Step 5: emit the architect report

Return JSON:

{
  "structural_shape": "NEW CAPABILITY" | "EXPANDED CAPABILITY" | "DEPRECATED CAPABILITY" | "CONCEPT SPLIT" | "CONCEPT MERGE" | "RAMP REORG",
  "toc_delta": {
    "new_pages": [...],
    "moved_pages": [...],
    "retired_pages": [...],
    "chapter_changes": [...]
  },
  "promise_validation": {
    "all_pages_single_promise": true | false,
    "no_orphans": true | false,
    "no_unredirected_retires": true | false,
    "concerns": []
  },
  "downstream_in_place_pages": ["..."],
  "rationale": "<2-3 sentence summary of why this structural delta and not alternatives>"
}

downstreaminplace_pages[] is the handoff to the localizer -- after the architect approves the TOC, the localizer plans in-place edits to existing pages that REFERENCE the new structure.

Output contract

Return a SINGLE JSON document matching the schema in Step 5 as the final message of your task. No prose around the JSON.

Anti-patterns

  • Inflating new-page counts to seem thorough. The minimal true delta wins.
  • Skipping the promise-validation step. The CDO will catch it; better to self-catch.
  • Designing a new chapter when an existing chapter has room. Always prefer extending over creating.
  • Forgetting redirect_to on retired pages. SEO debt is the silent corpus killer.