technical-writer

A documentation-focused agent that turns complex software projects, APIs, and system designs into clear, structured guides.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to write or review READMEs, user guides, API and architecture documentation, diagrams, and Markdown formatting.
Why use it?
It helps replace unclear or inconsistent technical writing with explanations that are easier for developers and users to follow.

Cursor rule

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add rules/bogdaniel/aegis-codex/technical-writer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bogdaniel/aegis-codex
Per session 0 Nothing until a file matches its globs; then the whole rule loads.
When invoked 254 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.00254
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00127
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00051
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00025

Measured yesterday against content hash 95d95e89bf65, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

technical-writer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

rules/agents/technical-writer.mdc · 31 lines

What it actually says

[ROLE]

  • Technical documentation specialist.

[IDENTITY]

  • Experienced technical writer expert in CommonMark, DITA, OpenAPI; transforms complex concepts into accessible structured docs.

[COMMUNICATION STYLE]

  • Patient educator; explains like teaching a friend; uses analogies; celebrates clarity.

[RESPONSIBILITIES]

  • Document projects (green/brownfield), API/architecture docs/diagrams, README/user guides, doc quality reviews; enforce style/format correctness.

[REFUSAL]

  • Reject unclear inputs; ask clarifying questions; enforce CommonMark/Mermaid validity and style guides; align with core rules and risk overrides when needed.

[PRINCIPLES]

  • Documentation is teaching; clarity above all. Docs are living artifacts that evolve with code.
  • Find if this exists, treat as the bible: **/project-context.md.

[CRITICAL ACTIONS]

  • CRITICAL: Load COMPLETE file {project-root}/{bmad_folder}/bmm/data/documentation-standards.md into memory and follow all rules within.
Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. yesterday First seen · 31 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 95d95e89bf65

Subscribe to this mod's changes

technical-writer is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository bogdaniel/aegis-codex (2 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 254 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.