Skip to content

readme-structure-apply

Audits, scaffolds, or patches a repository's README.md against the readme-structure spec (six required sections, ≤200 lines).

Audits the repository's README.md against the canonical-language file under spec/project/readme-structure/ and, with per-item user approval, scaffolds or patches the file: H1 + tagline, CI badges, six required sections in order (Purpose, Usage, Structure, Related repositories, Status, License), the consumer-first ordering rule, the ≤200-line length budget, and link rules. Three operations: audit (read-only conformance report), scaffold (greenfield), patch (additive fix). Invoke when the user asks to apply, audit, scaffold, or patch the README against the spec; also handles equivalent German-language requests. Don't use for docs/ page content (audience-doc-author), MkDocs nav (mkdocs-structure-apply), Vale prose linting (prose-vale-curator), or the audience artefact (audience-identify). Supports resume on re-invocation per spec/claude/resumable-work/.

Use when

  • you want to audit an existing README against the spec
  • you want to scaffold a fresh README for a new repo
  • you want to additively patch a missing section into an existing README

Don't use when

See also

Referenced by

README Structure Apply

Operationalises spec/project/readme-structure/<canonical_language>.md inside the current repository. The skill audits the repository-root README.md against the spec's section skeleton, the consumer-first ordering rule, and the length / link / language requirements; with explicit per-item user consent it scaffolds a fresh README or patches a single finding at a time on an existing one.

When the spec isn't present in the target repository, fall back to the copy shipped by the nolte-shared plugin (read it at runtime from the plugin install path). Never invent requirements that don't appear in the spec.

Why this is a skill, not an agent

Per spec/claude/skill-vs-agent/ §Decision dimensions, this capability is a skill because:

  • Mid-flow user approval is the contract. Every section addition, badge change, and tagline rewrite is written only with explicit per-change confirmation; the README is the repository's most visible artefact and the user's voice in it matters.
  • Persistent on-disk output that flows back into the main conversation. The audit table, the per-section proposals, and the post-edit Vale check (delegated to prose-vale-curator) all surface in the conversation so the user can decide.
  • Orchestrator pattern. The skill dispatches audience-doc-author for the tagline / Purpose / Usage prose authoring once the section containers exist, dispatches prose-vale-curator to Vale-check the result, and routes to audience-identify when the README needs an ## Audiences section but the audience artefact doesn't exist yet; per spec/claude/skill-vs-agent/ §Hybrid pattern, the orchestrator is always a skill.
  • Precedent. Follows the same audit + scaffold + patch shape as mkdocs-structure-apply, project-structure-apply, docs-audience-tracks-apply; portfolio-wide consistency favours the same artefact type.
  • Counter-dimension considered. A narrower agent could specialise on README authoring as a bounded one-shot, but the load-bearing dimension here is the per-section approval dialogue, not the prose authoring (which is delegated); skill wins.

User-language policy

Detect the user's language from their message and respond in it. The README itself is English-only per spec/project/readme-structure/ §File and language ("MUST be written in English, regardless of the primary working language of the maintainers"); never produce a README.de.md or similar. Multilingual content lives under docs/<lang>/.

Tool selection rationale

Declared tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash.

  • Read / Glob / Grep for repository inspection (README.md, .github/workflows/, LICENSE, pyproject.toml / package.json for proper-noun discovery, neighbouring portfolio repos for the related-repositories section).
  • Write for scaffold (a fresh README.md doesn't exist yet) and Edit for patch (a section is added or fixed in an existing README).
  • Bash is necessary for two read-only checks: counting README lines (the spec sets a ~200-line budget) and verifying CI badge URLs resolve to actual workflow files in .github/workflows/. No destructive bash.
  • No WebFetch / WebSearch: the spec is the only source of truth; primary-proper-noun links (Claude Code, Home Assistant, Vale) come from the user or are surfaced as # TODO markers rather than auto-fetched.

Preconditions

Before doing anything:

  1. Confirm the working directory is a git repository (git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree).
  2. Locate spec/project/readme-structure/<canonical_language>.md — either in the target repo or via the nolte-shared plugin. If neither is reachable, stop and ask the user which spec source to use.
  3. Detect the operation:
  4. README.md absent at repo root → scaffold (default).
  5. README.md present → patch (or audit when the user explicitly asks for a read-only check).
  6. Detect the repository type (Claude Code plugin, GitHub workflow package, Home Assistant integration, Vale style package, Python service, CLI, library) by scanning for marker files: .claude-plugin/plugin.json, .github/workflows/_*.yml (callable workflows), custom_components/, styles/, pyproject.toml, package.json. The type informs the ## Structure section's content but doesn't change the section skeleton itself.
  7. Check for uncommitted changes in README.md. If the file is dirty, report and ask whether to stash, commit, or abort — never overwrite uncommitted work.

Operations

1. audit (read-only)

Walk through the spec's Acceptance Criteria one item at a time, classify each finding as pass, missing, or drift. Group findings by spec area:

  • File and language: README.md at repo root, English-only, passes Vale (delegate the Vale check to prose-vale-curator rather than running Vale here — surface the count, not the alerts).
  • Header block: single # <repo-name> H1 matching the GitHub repo name, CI badges under the H1 for every merge-gating workflow, one-to-three-sentence tagline naming what the repo is and who it's for (no marketing language), primary proper nouns linked on first mention, tagline ≤ 280 characters.
  • Required sections: ## Purpose, ## Usage (or ## Installation or ## Getting started), ## Structure (when layout non-obvious), ## Related repositories (when peers exist), ## Status, ## License (when LICENSE ships). Verify presence and order; report sections in wrong order as drift.
  • Consumer-first ordering: consumer-facing sections (Purpose, Usage) precede contributor sections (Structure, Status, License); dogfooding instructions live as ### sub-sections of ## Usage, never as top-level sections.
  • Links and badges: LICENSE linked via relative path; cross-repo links use absolute https://github.com/<org>/<repo> URLs; CI badges point at the same repo's workflows, not copied-over from elsewhere.
  • Length and density: total ≤ ~200 lines excluding code blocks; report a hard fail at >250 lines; short paragraphs and lists preferred over prose blocks.

Audit is read-only — never autofix during audit.

2. scaffold (greenfield: README.md absent)

For each step below, confirm with the user per section before writing.

  • Create README.md at repo root with the following structure:
  • # <repo-name> H1 — derived from the directory name or the name: field of .claude-plugin/plugin.json / pyproject.toml / package.json.
  • CI badge block under the H1 — one badge per workflow under .github/workflows/ that gates merges to develop (detected via if: github.ref == 'refs/heads/develop' or branches: [develop]). One badge per line.
  • Tagline — propose a single one-sentence stub with two # TODO markers: the deliverable shape and the intended consumer audience. The audience marker routes to audience-identify when the artefact exists, otherwise to the user.
  • ## Purpose — empty body with a placeholder paragraph ("Replace this with two to six bullets describing the problem this repository solves."); dispatch audience-doc-author for the body authoring as a follow-up.
  • ## Usage (default) or ## Installation / ## Getting started (when the repository type suggests one of the alternatives) — empty body with a placeholder pointing at the chosen install path, plus a ### Local development sub-section stub when the repo carries a Taskfile.yml.
  • ## Structure (only when the repo layout is non-obvious — Claude Code plugins, multi-component monorepos, HA integrations) — empty tree-style placeholder with # TODO markers for the per-entry comments.
  • ## Related repositories (only when neighbouring portfolio repos exist) — empty bullet list with # TODO markers for peer-link + description.
  • ## Status — single-line placeholder ("Early stage." or similar) with a # TODO marker.
  • ## License — [<SPDX identifier>](LICENSE) link plus copyright holder line, both derived from the LICENSE file's first few lines.
  • After scaffolding, route the user to audience-doc-author for the Purpose / Usage / Structure body authoring and to prose-vale-curator for the final Vale check.

3. patch (additive: README.md present)

For each missing or drift finding from a prior audit, propose the exact change and ask the user to approve it before writing. Don't bundle unrelated changes into a single approval step.

  • Missing required section: propose the section header with a placeholder body and a # TODO marker for the prose; route the user to audience-doc-author for the body.
  • Required sections in wrong order: propose the reorder as a single edit; show the before / after section sequence inline.
  • H1 doesn't match repo name: propose the fix; verify against the GitHub repository name via the local .git/config remote.origin.url.
  • Missing or stale CI badge: propose the badge addition / removal; the badge must point at github.com/<org>/<repo>/actions/workflows/<file>.yml and the workflow file must exist in .github/workflows/.
  • LICENSE linked via absolute URL: propose the relative-link replacement.
  • Tagline > 280 characters or contains marketing language: surface the violation and propose a short rewrite; the user approves the wording.
  • Total length > ~200 lines: surface which sections exceed; propose moving sub-content into docs/ and route the user to mkdocs-structure-apply or audience-doc-author as appropriate.
  • Dogfooding section at top-level: propose moving it into ## Usage as a ### Local development sub-section.

After every successful write, route the user to prose-vale-curator for the post-edit Vale check; never claim "Vale-clean" without dispatching the curator.

Output contract

The skill returns to the user, in this order:

  1. Operation + target: which operation ran (audit / scaffold / patch), absolute path to the target README.md, detected repository type.
  2. Pre-state: brief summary of what was found (README present? line count? badge count? sections present and in what order?).
  3. Audit findings (always): grouped per spec area, with one row per Acceptance-Criteria item showing status (pass / missing / drift) and a one-line evidence snippet.
  4. Planned edits (for scaffold / patch): list of changes, one line per change, with rationale linking back to the spec line.
  5. Approval gate (for scaffold / patch): explicit user-decision point; nothing is written until the user confirms.
  6. Applied edits (after approval): the absolute path of the written file, plus a per-section diff summary.
  7. Caller follow-ups: explicit list — dispatch audience-doc-author to fill in # TODO body markers, dispatch prose-vale-curator to Vale-check the result, route to audience-identify if the README needs an audience reference but the artefact doesn't exist, commit the edits, open the PR via pull-request-create.

Gotchas

  • Patch operations must preserve all existing frontmatter and prose: when adding a missing section or reordering sections in an existing README.md, every other section's content must be carried over verbatim — a patch that truncates or omits existing prose is a data-loss bug, not a style issue.
  • Uncommitted README changes block the operation: if README.md has unstaged or staged-but-uncommitted changes when the skill starts, it stops and asks the user to stash, commit, or abort — never overwrite a dirty file; confirm the precondition check runs before any Write or Edit.
  • CI badge URLs must resolve to actual workflow files: the skill verifies badge URLs against .github/workflows/; a badge pointing at a renamed or deleted workflow silently becomes a broken badge in the rendered README — always re-check workflow file existence after any badge addition.

Resumability

Per spec/claude/resumable-work/, this skill is resumable: true. State is persisted to .resume/readme-structure-apply/<run-id>.yml after every successful user-approval gate and after each named phase boundary. On re-invocation, scan that directory for files with status: in_progress whose inputs: snapshot matches the current invocation; if one matches, prompt the operator with Resume run <run_id> from phase <phase> (last checkpoint <last_checkpoint_at>)? [resume / start-new / discard]. The state-file envelope (schema_version, run_id, inputs, phase, decisions[], status, ...) and the fail-closed semantics on schema or YAML errors are load-bearing in the spec; don't duplicate those rules here.

Hard rules

  1. Never author body prose beyond a single placeholder paragraph plus # TODO markers. Body authoring is delegated to audience-doc-author.
  2. Never produce a non-English README.md (no README.de.md, no inline German prose). The spec's §File and language MUST is hard.
  3. Never silently break the consumer-first ordering rule. When a patch would move a contributor section above a consumer section, stop and explain.
  4. Never auto-publish or auto-fetch a primary-proper-noun link (Claude Code, Home Assistant, Vale, …). Surface the link as a # TODO marker and ask the user to provide the canonical upstream URL.
  5. Always read the spec at runtime: prefer the target repo's spec/project/readme-structure/<canonical_language>.md; fall back to the copy shipped by the nolte-shared plugin only when the target repo lacks one.
  6. Always delegate the Vale check to prose-vale-curator after a scaffold or patch; never claim "Vale-clean" without dispatching the curator.

Sources

  • spec/project/readme-structure/ — the canonical authoritative spec this skill operationalises
  • spec/project/prose-style/ — the Vale rule set the resulting README must pass; this skill delegates the actual check to prose-vale-curator
  • spec/project/audience-identification/ — the audience artefact the README references for "intended consumers"
  • spec/claude/skill-vs-agent/ — the skill-vs-agent decision dimensions that justify this artefact as a skill, not an agent