--- name: content-lifecycle-manager description: "A specialized skill for systematizing knowledge base content lifecycle management and quality governance. Used by the maintenance-planner and wiki-builder agents when managing content update cycles, ownership, and quality scores. Automatically applied in contexts involving 'content lifecycle,' 'governance,' 'update cycle,' 'document quality,' or 'knowledge management process.' Note: CMS server operations and automation script deployment are outside the scope of this skill." --- # Content Lifecycle Manager — Content Lifecycle Management Tool A specialized skill that enhances the content management capabilities of the maintenance-planner and wiki-builder agents. ## Target Agents - **maintenance-planner** — Governance, update cycles, quality management - **wiki-builder** — Including lifecycle metadata during document creation ## 5-Stage Content Lifecycle ``` [Plan] -> [Create] -> [Review] -> [Publish] -> [Maintain] | | +------------ [Retire/Archive] <-----------------+ ``` ### Roles and Deliverables by Stage | Stage | Responsible | Action | Deliverable | |-------|------------|--------|-------------| | Plan | Content Owner | Define topic, set scope | Content brief | | Create | Author | Draft writing | Draft document | | Review | Reviewer | Technical accuracy + readability review | Review feedback | | Publish | Editor | Formatting, metadata, linking | Published document | | Maintain | Owner | Regular review, updates | Update records | | Retire | Owner | Archive or delete | Retirement rationale | ## Update Cycles by Content Type | Content Type | Recommended Cycle | Trigger Events | |-------------|------------------|----------------| | API Reference | Every release | API changes | | Onboarding Guide | Quarterly | Process changes | | Architecture Docs | Semi-annually | Architecture decisions | | Coding Conventions | Annually | Convention agreements | | FAQ | Monthly | Question accumulation | | Glossary | Quarterly | New terms emerge | | Incident Runbooks | After incidents | Incident occurrence | ## Document Quality Scorecard ### 5-Dimension Quality Assessment | Dimension | Weight | 1 Point | 3 Points | 5 Points | |-----------|--------|---------|----------|----------| | Accuracy | 30% | Contains errors | Mostly accurate | Fully accurate | | Currency | 25% | 1+ year without update | Verified within 6 months | Up to date | | Completeness | 20% | Key content missing | Basic coverage | Comprehensive | | Readability | 15% | Difficult to read | Average | Very clear | | Findability | 10% | No metadata | Basic tags | Rich metadata | ### Quality Grades | Total Score | Grade | Action | |------------|-------|--------| | 4.0-5.0 | A (Excellent) | Maintain | | 3.0-3.9 | B (Good) | Minor improvements | | 2.0-2.9 | C (Fair) | Update needed | | 1.0-1.9 | D (Poor) | Immediate rewrite or retire | ## Governance Model ### RACI Matrix | Activity | Author | Reviewer | Owner | Admin | |----------|--------|----------|-------|-------| | New creation | R | C | A | I | | Review | I | R | A | I | | Publish | I | C | R | I | | Update | R | C | A | I | | Retire | I | C | R | A | R=Responsible, A=Accountable, C=Consulted, I=Informed ### Ownership Models | Model | Best For | Pros | Cons | |-------|---------|------|------| | Individual ownership | Specialized technical docs | High quality | Bottleneck, bus factor | | Team ownership | Process docs | Distributed load | Distributed responsibility | | Community | Wiki-style knowledge | Voluntary contributions | Quality variance | ## Document Status Workflow ``` [draft] -> [review] -> [published] -> [outdated] -> [archived] ^ | +---- [revision] <---------+ ``` ### Status Metadata Management ```yaml --- status: "published" # draft | review | published | outdated | archived owner: "backend-team" reviewers: ["senior-dev", "tech-lead"] created: "2024-01-15" last_reviewed: "2024-06-20" next_review: "2024-12-20" review_cycle: "6months" # monthly | quarterly | 6months | yearly version: "2.1" change_log: - date: "2024-06-20" author: "dev-a" summary: "Updated for API v3 changes" --- ``` ## Content Audit ### Audit Procedure ``` 1. Generate complete document inventory 2. Apply quality scorecard to each document 3. Establish action plans by grade 4. Identify orphan documents (no owner) 5. Identify duplicate/conflicting documents 6. Create update schedule calendar ``` ### Audit Report Template ```markdown ## Content Audit Report **Audit Date**: {Date} **Scope**: {Scope} ### Summary - Total documents: {N} - Grade distribution: A({a}%), B({b}%), C({c}%), D({d}%) - No owner assigned: {orphan} items - 1+ year without update: {stale} items ### Immediate Action Required | Document | Current Grade | Issue | Suggested Action | |----------|-------------|-------|-----------------| ### Improvement Needed Within Quarter | Document | Current Grade | Issue | Suggested Action | |----------|-------------|-------|-----------------| ```