> For clean Markdown of any page, append .md to the page URL. > For a complete documentation index, see https://docs.nvidia.com/docsfab/llms.txt. > For AI client integration (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.), connect to the MCP server at https://docs.nvidia.com/docsfab/_mcp/server. # Create Documentation Workflow in DocsFab > Create source-grounded documentation with one bounded correction, independent checks, and retained local patches. `create-documentation` is a DocsFab runtime workflow, not a skill. DocsFab coordinates repository selection, revision binding, source-grounded planning, explicit write authorization, linting, technical verification, peer review, independent audience testing, quality evaluation, run records, and local patches. For more information, refer to [Workflow Contracts in DocsFab](/docsfab/reference/workflow-contracts). ## Contract at a Glance The following table summarizes the workflow contract. | Field | Contract | | --- | --- | | Use it when | The approved outcome requires a new page or documentation set. | | Mutation | An initial write and at most one correction, limited to the original planned paths. | | Required authority | Explicit runtime write authorization for the selected repository and revision. | | Result | A local, review-ready patch plus separate planning, check, verification, review, audience, and evaluation evidence. | | Excluded workflow actions | Publish, commit, push, open a merge request, or merge. | ## Workflow Sequence The workflow starts with these seven required steps: 1. Collect related content or source code, then plan with `plan-documentation` 2. `derive-source-obligations` (`verify-technical-accuracy` inventory-only) 3. `write-documentation` in create mode 4. `lint-documentation` 5. `provisional-technical-verification`, using `verify-technical-accuracy` 6. `review-documentation` 7. `verify-technical-accuracy`, reconciling source-backed factual objections After those checks, the runtime selects one of the following two fixed paths. | Initial Assessment | Remaining Steps | Total Steps | | --- | --- | --- | | No qualifying source-backed technical omissions or conflicts | Audience understanding, then quality evaluation of the first draft. | 9 | | Source-backed omitted or conflicting facts linked to admitted technical issues | One revision, fresh lint, provisional and canonical technical verification, editorial review, audience understanding, and quality evaluation. | 14 | The revision uses the original plan, source ledger, and admitted technical and editorial findings. Only source-backed technical omissions and conflicts can trigger it. Product defects, unsupported policy, missing evidence, and stylistic preferences remain visible without independently authorizing another write. The revision cannot add pages, change source files, replan the task, or start another revision. Invalid or unavailable required evidence stops the run; it does not select the path with fewer checks. Collection is the first phase of the planning step, so it does not add another model invocation. Planning starts from supplied sources and exact paths, then fills material source or placement gaps. The plan binds those sources to each proposed page before writing. Before writing, source-obligation derivation identifies reader-relevant behavior in the admitted sources. Its ledger records proposed atomic facts, source locations, and uncertainty across the six technical dimensions. The writer receives the exact canonical ledger bytes and checks the original sources. The ledger cannot expand the approved sources, page set, tools, or write authority. Its completeness remains `bounded-not-proven`. After writing, the provisional technical check and independent editorial review assess the same first candidate. A fresh canonical technical correction then checks the candidate, original sources, obligation ledger, provisional result, and exact candidate-bound editorial result. It independently checks factual objections against their sources and expresses supported omissions or conflicts through the existing technical fact inventory. Unsupported advice, style preferences, missing policy, and product defects remain non-actionable evidence. The canonical correction accounts for each obligation as retained, refined, or rejected. A refinement or rejection preserves the original proposal and records a source-backed reason. The model returns judgment only: verdict, coverage, issue judgments, and one obligation judgment for each sealed ledger row. The host fills identity, locators, and accounting from that ledger. A sealed proposal that omits obligation judgments fails `invalid-shape`. An applicable dimension with no admitted facts fails `invalid-fact-inventory`. Each judgment contributes only its ID, severity, category, target location, and fact links. The host rejects inconsistent links and out-of-target locations, then derives the unchanged technical review issues from the exact linked statements, dispositions, uncertainties, source locators, and bound repository revision. The model does not supply a separate factual finding, source-evidence narrative, action, or impact field. Only the host-derived canonical technical result feeds the revision decision. This protocol changes no workflow step, model call, branch count, or revision limit. Before the revision decision, the host checks source support. A page whose coverage stays `unverified`, or a technical dimension the obligation ledger marks `unverified`, means the bound sources do not establish that behavior. The run then stops with status `needs-input` instead of revising or completing. It names one slot per page and dimension, for example `Source for environment prerequisite on docs/cli-reference.md`, and prints one continue command. Attach the repository file that establishes the behavior with `docsfab do --continue --attach `, or reply with its path in `docsfab live-agent`. The continued job keeps your instruction, plans again with that file named as an approved source, and verifies the page again. The retained first draft is not delivered. Refer to [A Run Stops With needs-input](/docsfab/troubleshooting#a-run-stops-with-needs-input). After a revision, fresh canonical technical and editorial checks feed current findings and quality evaluation. The private run record retains the original assessments and provisional results for inspection. The revision records which issues it applied or rejected. For each issue, the runtime lists the admitted source locators that the revision can cite. The revision must copy one or more locators from that issue's list verbatim. It cannot change a range, combine citations, or use a locator listed only for another issue. It also cannot claim an applied correction when the patch is unchanged. The first draft remains intact while the revision runs in a separate private workspace. A revision becomes the selected draft only after its source, path, and retained-patch checks succeed. A failed revision keeps the first draft selected and retains admissible partial work separately. Partial work is never the selected patch. A later review failure can leave the revised draft selected, with its incomplete assessment or remaining defects reported explicitly. The ordinary final patch always describes the selected draft against the original source revision. Findings and recovery inspection use that same draft. A successful write or completed step sequence does not establish product readiness, audience validation, or the absence of content defects. The checks and optional revision use the selected model and can increase run time and cost. Existing provider, tool, and lease limits remain per step. Caller cancellation and any stronger overall deadline cover the complete invocation without resetting at the revision boundary. The instruction must name an actionable outcome, audience, and scope. Missing material decisions remain unresolved. Clean non-author providers are required for independent review or a gating decision; same-context results remain self-review or proxy evidence. The audience step tests the frozen candidate only when the run supplies a target identity, a versioned scenario corpus and oracle, a representative audience match, an independent participant, and run authority. The participant does not receive author or reviewer context, expected answers, the scoring oracle, or prior evaluation results. The audience protocol result is forwarded byte-for-byte as an untrusted observed summary to the final evaluator. Create and update outcomes stay `inconclusive` and carry the standing `insufficient-evidence` limitation until a separately host-validated governed campaign supplies the required semantic validation receipt and host-known documentation content identity. Missing inputs, malformed or semantically invalid evidence, and candidate revision mismatch remain visibly distinct in the observed summary sent to the final evaluator. A provider failure remains visible in the failed step and run record and prevents the evaluator from running. Deterministic tests verify evidence plumbing and do not qualify an audience directly. ## Create a Multi-Page Set Refer to [Create a Documentation Set](/docsfab/workflows/create-documentation-set). ## Bind Tracked Source Evidence Refer to [Source Evidence Reference](/docsfab/reference/status-and-configuration/source-evidence). ## Bind a Local Commit Range Refer to [Bind a Local Commit Range](/docsfab/workflows/bind-commit-range). ## GitHub Change Sources Refer to [Bind a GitHub Change](/docsfab/workflows/bind-github-change). ## Output and Authority Boundary The workflow returns local review-ready artifacts. It does not publish or perform SCM changes. `packages/quality/benchmarks/guided-demo/` remains its synthetic fixture, not another public skill. If the CLI run succeeds, host delivery opens one draft merge request unless you pass `--patch-only`. That projection is not part of the fixed workflow and cannot merge or publish the documentation. `--allow-write` and `--draft-mr` remain accepted. ## Authoritative Sources The following files are the authoritative sources for this page: - [Workflow manifest](../../../packages/runtime/workflows/create-documentation.json) - [Inventory-only verification skill](../../../packages/skills/verify-technical-accuracy/SKILL.md) - [Technical verification skill](../../../packages/skills/verify-technical-accuracy/SKILL.md) - [Authoring skill](../../../packages/skills/write-documentation/SKILL.md) - [Shared skill execution contract](../../../packages/skills/EXECUTION_CONTRACT.md) ## Related Topics The following pages provide related information: - [Create and update procedure](/docsfab/workflows/run-a-documentation-workflow) - [Skill Behavior Contracts in DocsFab](/docsfab/reference/quality/skills) - [Restructure Documentation Workflow in DocsFab](/docsfab/reference/workflow-contracts/restructure-documentation)