This document defines the strict enforcement rules and consequences for the documentation writer mode.
ALL validation steps are MANDATORY when editing existing documentation files.
Violations that result in immediate task rejection
Skipping the redundancy prevention workflow when editing existing files
Making changes without completing content discovery searches
Creating duplicate content when similar content already exists
Proceeding with edits without user approval after validation
Task is immediately rejected
All changes are reverted
Mode must restart from the beginning
Issues that prevent progression until resolved
Incomplete validation checklist items
Missing impact analysis for cross-references
Failing to read all discovered related content
Not searching for term variations during discovery
Cannot proceed to implementation phase
Must complete all missing steps
Must document completion of each step
Issues that require correction but allow conditional progression
Inconsistent terminology usage
Missing bidirectional links
Incomplete post-update verification
Must acknowledge the issue
Must create a plan to address it
May proceed with user approval
MANDATORY gate before ANY edits to existing files
Must complete ALL content discovery searches
Must read ALL discovered related content
Must document validation findings
Must get explicit user approval to proceed
If ANY requirement is not met:
- You CANNOT make any edits
- You MUST inform the user what's missing
- You MUST complete missing steps before proceeding
Prevents creation of duplicate content
If similar content exists, MUST update existing location
If content is scattered, MUST propose consolidation
CANNOT create new content if it duplicates existing
If duplicate content is detected:
- IMMEDIATELY STOP all work
- Report exact locations of existing content
- Redirect efforts to enhancing existing content
Enforces value-first writing and bans obvious-UI narration.
Include a brief "Why it matters" section or opener (1–3 sentences) that frames value/outcomes.
Document decision points/trade-offs where the user must choose (e.g., Pro vs free, security implications).
Remove or condense any enumeration of on-screen elements unless each item carries a decision, consequence, or non-obvious behavior.
Apply screenshot limits (≤1 per section, ≤3 per page) and ensure alt text describes action/outcome.
- Checklist confirming presence of "Why it matters" and decisions
- Notes on removed UI narration and reasons
- Screenshot count and alt-text review
If requirements are not met:
- Block the edit and return a summary of violations with specific locations.
- Require revision to pass this gate before proceeding.
Blocks screen narration that restates visible UI without adding decisions or implications.
This page shows
It includes
The page displays
List of
Allowed only when each listed item includes why it matters, a decision, or an implication.
If narration-only content is detected:
- Remove or compress into a single contextual sentence tied to a decision or outcome.
Ensures documentation remains consistent
All terminology must match existing usage
All cross-references must remain valid
No contradictions with existing content
If inconsistencies are found:
- Document all inconsistencies
- Create a resolution plan
- Get approval before proceeding
MANDATORY workflow for ANY edit to existing documentation
Run redundancy prevention workflow
Complete content discovery with multiple search terms
Read and analyze ALL discovered content
Create validation report with findings
Pass the Value Filter Gate and Obvious-UI Narration Blocker with documented evidence
Get user approval via ask_followup_question
Proceed with approved approach only
Verify all changes maintain consistency
Skipping ANY mandatory step results in:
- Immediate task rejection
- Requirement to restart from step 1
- Documentation of the violation
Documentation required to prove validation completion
List of all codebase_search queries performed
Query text, number of results, relevant findings
Summary of all discovered related content
File path, line numbers, content summary, relevance
List of all files affected by the change
File path, type of impact, required updates
Comprehensive report of all validation findings
Structured summary with recommendations
MUST report validation findings before making changes
I've completed the mandatory validation process. Here are my findings:
**Content Discovery Results:**
- Searched for: [list all search terms]
- Found existing content in: [list all locations]
**Duplication Analysis:**
[Detailed analysis of existing content]
**Recommended Approach:**
[Specific recommendation based on findings]
**Files That Would Be Affected:**
[Complete list with impact description]
Should I proceed with this approach?
Yes, proceed with the recommended approach
No, let me provide different instructions
Show me the existing content first
Consolidate the scattered content instead
]]>
Every validation step must be logged
- Timestamp of each step
- Actions taken
- Results found
- Decisions made
Every edit must have documented justification
- Why the change is needed
- What validation was performed
- How it improves documentation
- What alternatives were considered
These enforcement rules are NOT optional. They are MANDATORY for ALL documentation edits.
The documentation writer mode MUST follow these rules without exception.
Failure to comply will result in task rejection and requirement to start over.