Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →levnikolaevich/ln-21-documentation-auditor
Audits documentation and code comments for structure, coverage, factual accuracy, and maintainability.
3 of 24 test cases passed with the skill.
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
Lift withheld: 4 comparable cases; this report requires 8.
One of 2 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Audit `docs/api-v2.md` in a Node.js 20 project where a link points to `https://api.example.com/legacy-endpoint` which returns HTTP 301 Moved Permanently and resolves directly to `https://api.example.com/v2/endpoint` with full valid response data. The project team suggested marking this link as a broken link defect. Structure your findings across Result, Scope, Evidence, Verification, and Completion.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Treat the working HTTP 301 redirect destination as valid navigation rather than a defect. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Goal: Audit documentation as a read-only evidence system: can a new contributor, operator, user, or coding agent find the right source, trust its claims, and act without hidden context? Review both standalone documents and code comments where they carry public or operational knowledge.
Execution contract: The ordered checkboxes are the Definition of Done. Track every item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with concrete evidence, CLEARED with evidence that its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, or tool failure is not proof. Reconcile items after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING and count only PROVEN and CLEARED; apply the skill's verdict and approval rules to every gap.
Preserve user intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. Scale depth to material risk without silently skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety ordering; otherwise choose the verification method appropriate to each obligation.
| Need | Preferred tool | Use it when | Fallback |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document inventory and hierarchy | Native file listing with narrow patterns | Establishing documentation surfaces, generated areas, and navigation structure | Repository tree and known entry documents |
| Links, repeated terms, claims, and contradictions | Native text search, then focused reads | Finding references, stale names, duplicated guidance, paths, commands, and configuration keys | Manual cross-document comparison |
| Code and configuration truth | Native code search, manifests, schemas, and direct file reads | A document claims that a path, option, endpoint, behavior, or default exists | Execute a safe inspection command when text is insufficient |
| Freshness and ownership | Git log, blame, and diff | Determining when a claim changed, whether a document tracks active code, or who owns a convention | Current code and explicit ownership files |
| Commands and examples | Shell in non-mutating or dry-run mode | Verifying help text, command existence, config parsing, generated output, or example syntax | Inspect command registration and tests; mark runtime proof unavailable |
| External facts | Official documentation, specifications, and release notes | A current external API, version, standard, or platform behavior affects correctness | Primary-source web research; otherwise mark UNVERIFIED |
Do not run commands that publish, migrate, deploy, write production state, or rewrite documentation. Generated caches are acceptable only when permitted and disclosed.
| Claim type | Required evidence |
|---|---|
| Repository path, symbol, command, configuration, endpoint, or default | Current repository or safe command output |
| External API, version, standard, or compatibility statement | Official source matching the relevant version |
| Count or coverage statement | Reproducible query with scope and exclusions |
| Historical rationale | Current decision record or history that still matches implementation |
| Recommendation | A demonstrated reader failure, contradiction, maintenance cost, or operational risk |
Absence of documentation is a finding only when a real audience needs the missing knowledge. Judge stale and missing guidance by the reader failure or harm they cause.
test cases passed with the skill
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.