All skills

docs-search

Search documentation effectively for agents: index docs, query precisely, and cite sources. Use when agents need accurate answers from documentation rather than guesses.

Use this skill

  1. Read the full skill below — it’s all right here on this page. When you like it, hit copy.
  2. Paste it into a chat with Muse and add: “Please use this skill whenever I ask about docs search. Remember it for our future conversations.”
  3. That’s it. Muse follows the playbook for relevant tasks, and you approve anything it does.
View raw on GitHub ↗

The full skill

Docs Search

Overview

Agents hallucinate when they guess; docs search grounds them in written sources. The pattern: indexed documentation, precise queries, cited answers.

Effective docs search for agents means: curated doc sets, chunked and indexed content, query expansion, and answers that cite their sources.

Goal: every factual claim traceable to a doc passage — no confident inventions.

When to use

  • Agent answering questions from documentation
  • Building a knowledge base agents can query
  • Reducing hallucinations in agent responses
  • Onboarding agents to a codebase or product
  • Keeping agent answers current with doc updates

Core concepts

  • Curated doc sets. Index the right docs: official, current, complete. Garbage in, garbage out — curation beats index size.
  • Chunking. Split docs into retrievable passages (sections, not whole pages). Good chunks: self-contained, titled, with context.
  • Query expansion. Expand user questions into 2-3 search phrasings, including synonyms and related terms. One phrasing misses; several hit.
  • Hybrid retrieval. Keyword (BM25) + semantic (embeddings) together. Keywords catch exact terms; semantics catch paraphrases. Hybrid beats either alone.
  • Reranking. Rerank top candidates with a stronger model/scorer before answering. Retrieval gets candidates; reranking picks winners.
  • Cited answers. Every claim linked to its source passage. Citations let humans verify and agents stay honest.
  • Freshness. Docs change; indexes must follow. Re-index on doc updates; flag answers sourced from outdated passages.
  • Fallback honesty. No good source found? Say so. 'Not in the docs' beats a fabricated answer every time.

Practical workflow

  1. Curate the corpus. Select authoritative, current docs. Exclude drafts, duplicates, and deprecated versions. Document what's indexed.
  2. Chunk and index. Section-level chunks with titles and metadata (source, version, date). Build keyword + semantic indexes.
  3. Expand queries. For each question: 2-3 phrasings with synonyms. Search all; merge and dedupe results.
  4. Retrieve and rerank. Hybrid retrieval for candidates, rerank top 20 -> top 5. Quality over quantity in the answer context.
  5. Answer with citations. Compose from retrieved passages only; cite each claim to its passage. No source = no claim.
  6. Handle gaps honestly. Weak or no sources: say what's missing, suggest where to look. Never fill gaps with invention.
  7. Maintain freshness. Re-index on doc changes; version the index; surface source dates in answers.
  8. Evaluate regularly. Test questions with known answers; measure retrieval hit rate and answer accuracy. Improve chunking/queries from failures.

Common pitfalls

  • Uncurated indexes. Indexing everything including drafts and deprecated docs. Stale/wrong sources produce confident wrong answers.
  • Whole-page chunks. Retrieving 5,000-word pages as 'passages.' Chunk by section; precision matters.
  • Single-phrasing queries. One literal query missing paraphrased content. Expand phrasings or miss half the corpus.
  • Citation-free answers. Fluent answers with no sources. Unverifiable = untrustworthy, however fluent.
  • Fabrication on gaps. No source found, answer invented anyway. The cardinal sin of docs search — always admit gaps.
  • Stale indexes. Docs updated, index months old. Answers cite superseded information confidently.
  • Keyword-only or semantic-only. Each misses what the other catches. Hybrid retrieval is the standard for a reason.
  • No evaluation. Never testing whether retrieval actually works. A test set of known Q&A pairs keeps the system honest.
Source: GitHub ↗License: MITAuthor: awesome-muse-skills