name: business-doc-writer
description: Write structured business documents for project and product work. Use when the user needs a 项目可行性研究报告, 项目建议书, 产品需求说明书/PRD, 产品架构设计, 技术方案, 实施方案, executive summary, or wants help turning messy notes into a formal business document draft. Triggers on requests like: 写可研, 写项目建议书, 写PRD, 写产品需求文档, 写架构设计, 写技术方案, 写实施方案, 生成正式文档, 把这些材料整理成文档, turn this brief into a proposal, write a feasibility report, write a PRD, write an architecture design doc.

Business Doc Writer

Write formal business and product documents from rough notes, briefs, meeting notes, or partially structured inputs.

Agent execution preference

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

Default: main agent writes directly. The main agent should do the writing work directly, not delegate to sub-agents unless explicitly instructed.

Sub-agent mode only when user specifies. Only use sub-agent for writing when the user explicitly asks for it, such as:
- "用子代理写"
- "派生子代理写"
- "spawn a child agent to write"

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

Core rule

Do not pretend missing facts are settled.

When information is incomplete:
1. make reasonable structure decisions,
2. mark assumptions explicitly,
3. list open questions clearly,
4. keep the draft usable instead of blocking completely.

Also follow this rule strictly:

write depth before breadth.

A document with fewer sections but substantial content is better than a document with many thin sections.
Do not generate a heading unless you can actually develop it with meaningful content.

Supported document modes

Select the nearest mode based on user intent:

1. feasibility-report
2. For 项目可行性研究报告 / feasibility analysis

3. Focus on necessity, options comparison, feasibility, cost-benefit, risk, recommendation

4. project-proposal

5. For 项目建议书 / proposal / 立项材料

6. Focus on background, objectives, scope, expected outcomes, implementation path

7. prd

8. For 产品需求说明书 / PRD / requirement doc

9. Focus on users, scenarios, scope, functional requirements, non-functional requirements, acceptance criteria

10. architecture-design

11. For 产品架构设计 / 技术架构方案 / solution architecture

12. Focus on principles, modules, interfaces, data flow, deployment, security, scalability, trade-offs

13. implementation-plan

14. For 实施方案 / rollout / delivery plan

15. Focus on milestones, responsibilities, dependencies, resources, risks, acceptance

16. executive-summary

17. For one-page summaries for managers / leaders

18. Focus on decision-ready clarity, not detail overload

19. dense-longform

20. For long-form, report-like, high-density writing
21. Use especially for 项目建议书 and 可行性研究报告 when the user expects a substantial document rather than a lightweight draft
22. Focus on argument depth, section expansion, supporting logic, and report-grade readability

If ambiguous, ask 1-3 clarifying questions max. If still ambiguous, default to the most practical output and say what assumption you made.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify document type

Infer the target doc type.

If the user only gives raw material, first classify it using references/doc-types.md.

Step 2: Check input sufficiency

Look for the minimum viable inputs:
- background / context
- objective
- target audience
- scope
- constraints
- timeline or urgency

If any are missing, do one of these:
- ask concise questions if the missing info is critical,
- or proceed with explicit assumptions if drafting is still useful.

Step 3: Build a clean outline

Before drafting, decide the section structure.

Use the matching reference:
- references/feasibility-report.md
- references/project-proposal.md
- references/prd.md
- references/architecture-design.md

Use the template under assets/templates/ only when you need a fast skeleton.

Step 3.5: Choose depth level intentionally

For lightweight documents, a normal draft is fine.

For these document types, default to dense-longform unless the user asks for a short version:
- project-proposal
- feasibility-report

Dense-longform means:
- prioritize full section development over fast completeness
- write key sections as report sections, not summary blurbs
- allow fewer subsections if that gives stronger content density
- explicitly develop problem -> impact -> approach -> value logic

Step 4: Draft like a real working document

Write in a style suitable for internal business communication:
- direct
- structured
- decision-oriented
- low fluff
- explicit assumptions
- explicit dependencies
- explicit risks

Avoid:
- slogan-heavy writing
- generic AI filler
- academic tone unless the user wants it
- vague claims without basis

Step 4.5: Prevent hollow-outline writing

Do not write a document as a "table of contents with comments".

For every major section, include at least 2-3 kinds of substance from the list below:
- current facts or current state
- concrete problems
- constraints or dependencies
- option details or implementation detail
- risks or trade-offs
- scenarios or examples
- basis for judgment / recommendation logic

If a section only contains 1-2 generic sentences, do one of these instead:
- merge it into a neighboring section,
- expand it with real substance,
- mark it as pending with specific missing information.

Prefer:
- fewer but thicker sections
- explicit reasoning
- concrete details

Reject:
- headings that only repeat the title in sentence form
- sections that say a thing is important but do not explain why
- decorative summary language with no operational value

Step 4.6: Long-form expansion rules

When writing in dense-longform, apply these rules:

1. Set a target density
2. project-proposal: aim for roughly 3000-6000 Chinese characters unless the user asks for a shorter note

3. feasibility-report: aim for roughly 5000-10000 Chinese characters unless the user asks for a shorter note

4. Force key sections to be developed, not introduced
   For key sections, do not stop at summary-level language.
   Explain:

5. the current state,
6. the problem,
7. the impact,
8. the proposed path,

9. the reasoning behind the recommendation.

10. Prefer argument flow over heading count
    A strong long document should read like a developed argument, not a multiplied outline.

11. Use section-internal logic chains
    In project proposals and feasibility reports, important sections should usually follow a chain like:

12. current situation
13. existing problem
14. consequence / pressure
15. proposed solution or direction

16. value or conclusion

17. Expand subheadings and bullet points into real prose
    In the body of the document, if you introduce a subheading or bullet point, do not leave it as a label-only item.
    Each subheading or bullet must be followed by enough explanatory writing to answer at least one of these:

18. what it means,
19. why it matters,
20. how it works,
21. what problem it solves,
22. what constraint or risk is attached to it.

Bad pattern:
- a subheading followed by one shallow sentence
- a bullet list that only names items without explaining them

Better pattern:
- state the point,
- then explain it in 2-5 sentences of concrete prose,
- and connect it back to the document's recommendation or design logic.

1. Do not underwrite critical sections
   If the document type is project-proposal or feasibility-report, these sections must be developed substantially:
2. background / current state
3. necessity
4. construction goals
5. construction content
6. implementation path
7. budget / investment explanation
8. risk analysis
9. conclusion / recommendation

Step 5: Add operational value

When helpful, append these sections:
- Assumptions
- Open Questions
- Risks and Dependencies
- Decision Points
- Suggested Next Actions

These are often more useful than polishing prose.

Section-by-Section Writing Mode

This skill supports two optional modes for writing long documents. Activate them by specifying in your request:

Mode A: Interactive Section Writing (交互式分节写)

Trigger: "分节写" / "一章一章写" / "分段写" / "section-mode interactive"

Behavior:
1. First, output the outline (section structure) for confirmation
2. Write one section at a time
3. After each section, ask for confirmation before continuing to the next
4. You confirm each chapter before the next one starts
5. After all sections are done, combine into the final document

How to implement:
- Output the outline first, wait for user confirmation
- Write section 1 completely (with full expansion, not brief)
- Ask: "第1章写完了，继续第2章吗？"
- Wait for confirmation before writing section 2
- Repeat until all sections complete
- Finally, combine all sections into one document and offer to save

Use when:
- You want to review each section before moving on
- You want to make corrections mid-way
- The document is very long and you want incremental control

Mode B: Auto-Checkpoint Writing (自动存盘写)

Trigger: "存盘写" / "checkpoint" / "分节存盘" / "section-mode checkpoint"

Behavior:
1. Write the full document in one go
2. Automatically save each section to a separate file as it's written
- Save location: ./sections/01-{section-name}.md
- Each section file contains the full content of that section
3. After all sections are written, combine them into the final document at ./{doc-name}.md
4. Keep the section files as intermediate artifacts (don't delete)

How to implement:
- Create a sections/ subdirectory
- After finishing each section, write it to a separate file immediately
- Continue writing the next section
- After all done, read all section files and combine into final document
- Report both the section files and the final combined file

Use when:
- You want automatic backup in case of interruption
- You want to review individual sections later
- You want transparency into the writing process

How to use

Simply include one of these triggers in your request:

写一个项目建议书，分节写
写一份可行性研究报告，存盘写
写一个智慧园区方案，分章写 checkpoint

If no section mode is specified, the skill writes the document normally in one pass.

Default behavior: Normal writing (write all at once, no checkpoints)

Output rules by document type

feasibility-report

Default sections:
1. Project background
2. Necessity of construction / why now
3. Current-state analysis
4. Options comparison
5. Business feasibility
6. Technical feasibility
7. Economic / cost-benefit feasibility
8. Risk analysis
9. Implementation suggestion
10. Conclusion

Always include:
- comparison of at least 2 options when possible
- explicit risk section
- recommendation with rationale

For long-form feasibility reports:
- current-state analysis must be developed, not just mentioned
- options comparison must explain why options differ and how the recommendation is chosen
- feasibility sections must contain real constraints and enabling conditions
- conclusion must feel earned by the analysis, not announced in advance

project-proposal

Default sections:
1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Scope
4. Main construction content
5. Expected outcomes
6. Implementation path
7. Resource request / budget estimate
8. Risks and safeguards
9. Recommendation

Emphasize:
- why this project should be approved
- what success looks like
- what current problem makes this project necessary now
- why the proposed scope is the right first step

For long-form project proposals:
- do not treat sections as placeholders
- develop necessity, construction content, implementation path, and budget explanation in real prose
- explain why the recommendation follows from the earlier analysis

prd

Default sections:
1. Background and goals
2. Users and scenarios
3. Scope and non-scope
4. Functional requirements
5. Non-functional requirements
6. Dependencies and constraints
7. Milestones
8. Acceptance criteria
9. Risks

Emphasize:
- clarity over elegance
- testability
- boundary definition

architecture-design

Default sections:
1. Design goals
2. Scope
3. Design principles
4. High-level architecture
5. Module breakdown
6. Data flow / integration flow
7. Key technical choices
8. Security / performance / reliability
9. Deployment and evolution path
10. Risks and trade-offs

Emphasize:
- why this architecture, not just what it is
- trade-offs and constraints

implementation-plan

Default sections:
1. Objectives
2. Scope
3. Work breakdown
4. Milestones and timeline
5. Roles and responsibilities
6. Dependencies
7. Risks and mitigation
8. Acceptance and delivery criteria

Writing standards

Good style

• use concrete nouns
• use short paragraphs
• prefer bullets for requirements and risks, but always expand important bullets with prose
• state decisions clearly
• distinguish facts, assumptions, and proposals
• explain why, not just what
• develop core sections with enough supporting detail to stand on their own
• when using subheadings, make each subheading carry real explanatory content rather than label-only text

Bad style

• “赋能、抓手、闭环、全面提升” style filler unless the user explicitly wants official/government style
• generic “this project is of great significance” language without specifics
• giant unbroken paragraphs
• mixing requirements, assumptions, and implementation details without labels
• many headings with only 1-2 shallow sentences each
• sections that read like expanded bullet labels instead of real content

Missing-information policy

If details are missing, do not stop by default.

But do not use missing information as an excuse for hollow sections.
If detail is missing, explicitly write:
- what is known,
- what is assumed,
- what still needs confirmation,
- how that uncertainty affects the recommendation.

Use this block near the end when needed:

## Assumptions and open questions

### Current assumptions
- ...

### Open questions to confirm
- ...

File and formatting behavior

If the user asks for a deliverable file:
- write Markdown first unless they explicitly want another format
- use clear headings and stable section numbering
- name the file after the document type and topic

References

Read these only when relevant:
- references/doc-types.md — choose the right document mode
- references/feasibility-report.md — feasibility report structure and heuristics
- references/project-proposal.md — proposal structure and approval-oriented writing
- references/prd.md — PRD structure and requirement-writing rules
- references/architecture-design.md — architecture design structure and review points