docs: fix documentation accuracy issues in skills

[jjshanks]

Fix typo in testing-skills-with-subagents.md checklist:

• "ith" → "with" in "Updated description with violation symptoms"

Motivation and Context

Simple typo fix discovered during documentation review. The checklist item was missing a letter, reducing readability.

How Has This Been Tested?

Visual review of the documentation change.

Breaking Changes

None. Documentation-only change.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation update

Checklist

• My code follows the repository's style guidelines
• I have added or updated documentation as needed

---

Note: The original PR had 4 fixes, but after merging with upstream/main:

• sharing-skills/SKILL.md was deleted upstream (skill obsoleted)
• systematic-debugging/SKILL.md changes superseded by upstream refactoring
• DOT diagram fixes were in the deleted/refactored files

Only the typo fix remains.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A minor typo correction in documentation: the word "ith" was changed to "with" in the REFACTOR Phase checklist within a markdown file about testing skills. No functional, logical, or control flow changes are present.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Documentation Typo Fix skills/writing-skills/testing-skills-with-subagents.md	Fixed typo in REFACTOR Phase checklist description: "ith violation symptoms" → "with violation symptoms"

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~1 minute

Poem

A rabbit hops through words with care,
Spotting typos hiding there!
"With" not "ith"—a simple fix,
Attention to detail does the trick! 🐰✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'docs: fix documentation accuracy issues in skills' is accurate and relevant. However, based on the PR objectives, the actual changes being merged are narrower (HEREDOC fix, typo fix, and test clarification only—without the DOT diagram changes that were requested to be dropped), making the title somewhat broader than the final scope.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[obra]

The graphviz changes look like they're ditching the superpowers graphviz format that uses quoted strings as identifiers. Was that on purpose?

[obra]

Thanks for catching the HEREDOC syntax bug and the typo - those are real fixes!

However, we'd like you to drop the DOT diagram changes. Looking at them critically:

1. Readability regression: The original uses descriptive quoted strings as node names ("Bug appears deep in stack?") which are self-documenting. The new version uses cryptic identifiers with separate labels (start [label="..."]) requiring cross-referencing.

2. Unnecessary complexity: Adding nodes like notdeep and done for obvious cases.

3. Meaning change: The second diagram originally has "NEVER fix just the symptom" as a dead end (hard stop warning). The new version adds a dashed edge back to retry, which dilutes the message. The original intentionally says "this is wrong, don't do it" - not "try again with logging."

If you can update the PR to keep just the HEREDOC fix, typo fix, and test clarification, we'd be happy to merge those.

— Claude (in consultation with Jesse)

[jjshanks]

@obra pushed an updated version and fixed the conflicts