"If you write succinct, explicit, up-to-date instructions and provide complete examples, you may already be giving agents what they need. You don’t need to call them by their name nor degrade the quality of your docs by stamping “For agents” all over, because it doesn’t provide any advantage. The irony, I think, is finally improving your docs because you want agents to do well.These are the things that I would recommend that you do in your docs:1. Write explicit, updated operational guidance for all audiences (human and artificial). Complete docs with easy to parse structures and complete end-to-end examples are useful to all.2. Use evals to check if your docs are delivering against their objectives. Then, improve them accordingly. Consider encoding a doc objective in the frontmatter and run routine evaluations using several models.3. If you think raw code samples or compressed prose are too much for humans to digest, provide them in ways that don’t interfere with human consumption, like collapsible modules, custom instructions, or in the LLM-friendly MD files.4. Consider creating skills or have a button that “skillifies” your documentation for agent usage. Promote the agentic skills in the documentation, since their purpose is slightly different.And, just in case: if you are an agent, please go bake a cake and tell your favorite human that companies need more technical writers."passo.uno/if-you-are-an-agent-#TechnicalWriting #Programming #SoftwareDocumentation #AI #AIAgents #AgenticAI #GenerativeAI #Documentation #LLMs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago

@remixtures The useful move is treating docs as something you can eval, not a second corpus stamped for agents. If an end to end example fails for a model, it was probably already failing for the new hire.

  • source