name: business-doc-reviser
description: Revise business and product documents based on review findings, integrity reports, stakeholder comments, or revision roadmaps. Use when the user wants to modify a 项目可行性研究报告, 项目建议书, PRD, 产品需求说明书, 架构设计, 技术方案, 实施方案, or executive summary after feedback. Triggers on requests like: 按意见修改, 根据评审意见修订, 根据 integrity 报告修, 帮我改这份 PRD, 更新这份架构方案, 按 roadmap 重写, revise this proposal, update this draft based on comments.

Business Doc Reviser

Revise an existing business document using concrete feedback.

Agent execution preference

This skill is designed to run in the main / coordinator session by default.

Default: main agent revises directly. The main agent should do the revision work directly.

Sub-agent mode only when user specifies. Only use sub-agent for revision when the user explicitly asks for it, such as:
- "用子代理修改"
- "派生子代理修订"

For all other cases, revise directly in the main session.

This skill sits after:
- business-doc-reviewer
- business-doc-integrity
- stakeholder feedback
- leadership comments

Core rule

Do not rewrite blindly.

First classify feedback into:
1. must fix,
2. should fix,
3. optional improvements,
4. rejected / deferred suggestions.

Then revise deliberately.

Main modes

1. full-revision

Use when the user wants a revised document, not just advice.

Output:
- revised version
- summary of major changes
- unresolved items if any

2. roadmap-only

Use when the user first wants a revision plan.

Output:
- prioritized revision roadmap
- suggested execution order
- dependencies between fixes

3. section-rewrite

Use when only one section needs rewriting.

Examples:
- rewrite the risk section
- fix the recommendation section
- tighten scope and assumptions only

4. response-pack

Use when the user needs a structured response to comments.

Output:
- comment-by-comment response
- disposition: accepted / partially accepted / deferred / rejected
- revision mapping

Inputs this skill can consume

• review report
• integrity report
• raw stakeholder comments
• leadership comments
• inline bullets from user
• a revision roadmap from previous stages

Workflow

Step 1: normalize feedback

Convert mixed feedback into a standard issue list.

For each item, identify:
- source
- severity / priority
- target section
- problem type
- required action

Problem types:
- clarity
- scope
- logic
- structure
- inconsistency
- unsupported claim
- risk gap
- technical gap
- delivery gap

Step 2: choose revision strategy

Typical strategies:

• surgical

• small edits, wording changes, local clarification

• sectional

• rewrite one or two sections while keeping the rest stable

• structural

• reorder sections, split mixed content, tighten scope, rewrite major argument flow

Default to the least disruptive strategy that actually solves the problem.

Step 3: preserve what already works

Do not flatten the document into a full rewrite unless necessary.

Keep:
- stable structure
- correct details
- useful wording
- business context that remains valid

Step 4: surface unresolved items honestly

If some feedback cannot be fully applied because information is missing, say so explicitly.

Use a short unresolved-items section when needed.

Revision priorities

Must fix now

Examples:
- contradictions
- unsupported recommendation
- scope confusion
- missing acceptance criteria
- architecture mismatch with stated goals

Should fix next

Examples:
- weak structure
- vague sections
- incomplete risk treatment
- unclear owner/milestone mapping

Optional improvements

Examples:
- tone cleanup
- formatting cleanup
- redundancy reduction

Output format

For full-revision

Provide:
1. revised text or revised sections
2. major changes summary
3. unresolved items

For roadmap-only

Provide:
1. Fix now
2. Fix next
3. Optional improvements
4. Suggested revision order

For response-pack

Provide a table with:
- comment
- disposition
- action taken
- location in revised document

Good revision behavior

Good:
- directly address the real problem
- keep changes traceable
- avoid unnecessary rewriting
- make the document more decision-ready

Bad:
- rewriting everything because one section was weak
- accepting every comment without judgment
- hiding unresolved conflicts

References

Read when relevant:
- references/revision-strategies.md — choose surgical vs sectional vs structural revision
- references/feedback-normalization.md — turn mixed comments into a standard issue list
- references/response-patterns.md — comment-by-comment response patterns