Problem: the narrative docs lacked an enforceable style standard, and
agent-facing instruction (OIKOS/CAVEMAN/CONTRIBUTING) was interleaved with
human content at the repo root.
Change:
- Add .agents/shared/{writing-style,llm-wiki}.md — a lint-checkable prose
standard (with an imperative-voice exception for runbooks/recipes) and the
sources/wiki/index/log layer model.
- Move CAVEMAN.md -> .agents/shared/caveman.md,
CONTRIBUTING.md -> .agents/shared/page-templates.md,
OIKOS.md -> .agents/OIKOS.md; leave thin root stubs so old links resolve.
- Add .agents/domains/{knowledge,operations}/schema.md; operations schema
codifies "plans always live in plans/".
- Repoint live references (AGENTS, README, GLOSSARY, OIKOS) and fix OIKOS.md's
internal relative links for its new depth.
Risk: none to the operational substrate — inventory.yaml, hosts/*.yaml,
oikos/, mcp/, secrets/, bin/ untouched (verified via git status).
Verification: relative-link check across .agents/ clean; substrate churn empty.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
5.6 KiB
Writing Style
Write like a technical reference, not a marketing page. Every sentence conveys new information.
These rules govern committed documentation — wiki pages, READMEs, schemas, skills, AGENTS.md,
plans, investigations, and code comments. They are separate from caveman.md, which
governs an agent's chat responses; the two do not conflict.
New or rewritten pages follow these patterns from day one. Existing pages get updated the next time they are touched.
Vocabulary — never use these
- Significance puffers: "pivotal", "crucial", "vital", "groundbreaking", "transformative", "testament", "paramount", "invaluable".
- Analytical verbs: "delve", "leverage", "utilize", "facilitate", "foster", "showcase", "underscore", "streamline", "harness".
- Poetic nouns: "tapestry", "landscape" (figurative), "realm", "paradigm", "ecosystem" (figurative), "journey" (figurative), "nexus", "cornerstone".
- Promotional adjectives: "robust", "seamless", "innovative", "cutting-edge", "meticulous", "holistic", "comprehensive".
- Opening crutches: "In today's world", "In the ever-evolving landscape of", "It's worth noting that", "It is important to note that".
Use short, common words: "use" not "utilize", "help" not "facilitate", "show" not "demonstrate".
Voice
Describe what systems do and how they work.
- Reference prose (node pages, cross-cutting infrastructure descriptions,
## Role,## Why,At a glance) is third-person: state facts about the system, not instructions to a reader. - Recipes, runbooks, and skills are the exception: second-person imperative is allowed and
preferred where it makes a procedure clearer ("Edit the Caddyfile, commit + push", "Verify with
dig +short"). This matches how the operator actually works. The vocabulary, structure, and cross-reference rules below still apply.
Page shape
Every doc-level page follows the same shape so a reader scans it in one pass.
- One H1 = the page title. Node pages use
# <id> — \`; topic pages use# `. - Opening definition. First paragraph, 1–3 sentences, says what the thing is. No motivation, no marketing, no setup.
- Body sections in the natural order for the topic. Reuse the section templates in page-templates.md.
## Changelogat the bottom of every node/topic page — reverse-chronological, append-only. This section is machine-parsed (get_changeloginmcp/server.py); keep the### YYYY-MM-DD — titleshape.- Related links only at the bottom, only when a reference cannot be woven inline.
Section indexes (folder READMEs)
A folder's README.md opens with a 1–3 sentence prose intro that says what the section covers, then
a single navigation table — | Document | What it covers | — and nothing else. No stale counts, no
duplicated prose, no narrative between the intro and the table.
Structure rules
- Make every sentence information-dense. Cut filler, qualifiers, and setup phrases. Lead with the concrete fact or action, not why it matters.
- No participial tack-ons (", highlighting the importance of…"). If the clause adds information, make it a separate sentence.
- No meta-commentary about the content itself. Do not narrate the page's own structure or linking strategy.
- Prefer tables for enumerable items with internal structure (service/port maps, field lists, status grids). Reserve bullets for short non-structured lists.
- Use the bold-leading-phrase pattern for structured points:
**Read-only by construction.** The MCP server never mutates state.— a bold noun phrase, a period, then the explanation. - When enumerating across services or nodes, give each its own
###sub-section or a table row, not one run-on paragraph. - Use backticks for code, paths, hostnames, and file names (
inventory.yaml,192.168.8.77,pct config); italics for first-mention terminology. - Use
>blockquotes for caveats and gaps that interrupt the main flow:> **Outstanding gap.** DNS-vs-inventory drift check not yet wired.One thought per blockquote.
Diagrams
- Mermaid is the default for topology and flow diagrams.
infrastructure/topology.mdis generated byoikos/gen-topology.py— do not hand-edit it. - ASCII box diagrams are fine for small shape diagrams; keep them to one screen.
Sourcing and cross-references
- Factual discipline. Every claim is grounded in a cited source, an adjacent linked page, or a directly observable fact (
pct config,docker inspect, running config). Do not write sentences that sound sourced but are inference. When docs disagree with live state, fix the doc and note it in the changelog. - One-sided cross-references. When two pages relate, the link lives in the page where the connection makes organizational sense. Do not add a back-pointer unless that direction also carries content the reader needs.
- Cross-references are content, not catalog. Inline links arise from the surrounding prose; the linked page must be needed to understand the current sentence. A bottom-of-page "Related" list is the fallback, not the default.
- Pages link with standard relative markdown links (e.g. a container page links to
../infrastructure/dns.md), forming a navigable graph. Orphans are a bug.
Code comments and commit/PR prose
- Comments explain intent, trade-offs, or constraints the code cannot convey. No diff narration, no type restatement, no section-divider comments.
- Commit messages and PR descriptions are problem → change → risk → verification, not a file-by-file diff restatement.
- The banned vocabulary applies the same way in comments and commit messages.