Handoff workflows need finer granularity than personal…

When This Fires

• When documenting a workflow you'll hand off to someone else
• When creating documentation for your future self (anything you won't execute for 30+ days)
• When a handoff recipient keeps asking questions that "should" be answered by the docs
• Complements Competent stranger test for workflow steps — could someone… (competent stranger test) by adjusting who the "competent stranger" is

Common Failure Mode

Writing handoff documentation at the same granularity as personal notes: "Run the deploy script." You know which script, where it lives, what flags it needs, what to check after. The recipient knows none of this. Every unstated element is a support request that interrupts you or a mistake that requires cleanup.

The Protocol

(1) Identify who will actually execute this workflow — the specific people or roles, not a theoretical audience. (2) Calibrate to the least experienced among them: what do they know? What don't they know? (3) Apply Competent stranger test for workflow steps — could someone…'s competent stranger test using this specific calibration: could the least experienced executor complete each step with zero clarifying questions? (4) Include elements you'd normally skip for yourself: exact file paths, specific tool names, output formats, success/failure indicators, and "what to do if X goes wrong." (5) Test if possible: have the actual least-experienced executor follow the documentation cold. Every question they ask is a documentation gap to fill.