pm-writing — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited pm-writing (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Transform vague product writing into precise, actionable communication. Or generate new docs from scratch using PM writing best practices.
/pm-writing followed by text to rewrite or a descriptionUser pastes existing text. Rewrite it applying all principles below. Show before/after.
User describes what they need. Generate it from scratch using the principles below.
The first sentence of any document should answer: "What do you need from the reader?"
Bad: "Background on Q4 planning: Over the past several months, we've been evaluating various approaches to our recommendation system..." Good: "We need to decide by Friday whether to rebuild the recommendation engine (8 weeks) or patch the current one (2 weeks). I recommend rebuilding. Here's why."
Never make the reader hunt for the point. Lead with the decision, ask, or conclusion.
Use numbered lists instead of bullet points. Numbers allow precise referencing in feedback and discussion.
Bad:
Good:
Now a reviewer can say "I disagree with #2's priority" instead of "the second thing you mentioned."
Every project should have exactly one source of truth. It links to everything else but IS the definitive reference.
Structure of a canonical doc:
Never let the same information live in two places. When something changes, update the canonical doc.
Use consistent names for things. If the feature is called "Smart Search" in the PRD, it's "Smart Search" in the design doc, the eng spec, the launch plan, and Slack.
Bad: The doc calls it "intelligent search," the ticket says "AI search," and the meeting notes say "the new search thing." Good: Pick one name. Use it everywhere. Put it in the canonical doc.
When listing priorities, never say "these are all important." Stack-rank them. Ranking should feel uncomfortable — that means you're actually making choices.
Bad: "Our priorities this quarter are growth, quality, and platform stability." Good:
Replace vague words with numbers. If you don't have exact numbers, estimate and flag it.
Bad: "This will significantly improve performance." Good: "This will reduce p95 latency from 2.1s to ~500ms (estimated, need load testing to confirm)."
Bad: "Many users are affected." Good: "~12K MAU (18% of paid users) hit this bug weekly."
Never write a vague hypothesis. Every testable claim needs:
Bad: "Adding onboarding tooltips will improve activation." Good: "Adding 3-step onboarding tooltips (action) will increase D7 activation (metric) by 8-12% (magnitude) for new free-tier users (segment) who sign up via organic search (conditions)."
When a decision is made, write it down with:
Format:
Decision [date]: We will use approach B (streaming API). Decided by [owner] after evaluating batch API (too slow) and WebSocket (over-engineered). Revisit if latency requirements change.
When presenting a decision to stakeholders, always provide:
For each: one-sentence description, key trade-off, estimated effort.
End with: "I recommend Option B because [one sentence reason]."
Never present a problem without a recommended solution. Never present only one option (that's not a decision, it's a decree).
Most stakeholders will spend 30 seconds on your doc. Design for that.
| Bad Pattern | Fix |
|---|---|
| "I think we should maybe consider..." | "We should [X]. Here's why." |
| "There are some concerns about..." | "Risk: [specific risk]. Mitigation: [specific action]." |
| "We need to align on..." | "Decision needed: [specific question]. Options: [A/B/C]." |
| "Going forward, we'll..." | "By [date], [owner] will [specific action]." |
| "Various stakeholders..." | "[Name/team] and [name/team]." |
| "Significant improvement..." | "[X]% improvement in [metric]." |
| "ASAP" | "By [specific date]." |
| Wall of text | Numbered list with one idea per line |
Show the rewritten text, then a "Changes made" section listing which principles were applied and why.
Generate the document applying all 10 principles. Flag any places where the user needs to provide specific data (numbers, names, dates).
Direct but not aggressive. Confident but not arrogant. The goal is respect through clarity — honoring the reader's time by being precise.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.