Agent skill

Ln 53 Documentation Auditor

by levnikolaevich in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.

MITAuto-check passedDevelopment

Install Ln 53 Documentation Auditor

skills CLI
$ npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-53-documentation-auditor -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills ln-53-documentation-auditor --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor .claude/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
ln-53-documentation-auditor
GitHub stars
574
Token cost
~3.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,896 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
31
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.

  • Works in 5 steps: Establish Scope and Audiences → Check Structure and Discoverability → Check Relevance, Coverage, and Consistency → …
  • Development work in your project
  • SKILL.md covers Tool Routing, Evidence Rules, Checklist and Self-Check, plus 1 more section
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Ln 53 Documentation Auditor is an agent skill from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.

Its SKILL.md is about 3.8k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Development. The repository describes itself as: Help your AI agent finish the job: solve the right problem, keep changes focused, and show what was verified. For Claude Code and Codex. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Development work in your project

Example prompts

  • “Use the ln-53-documentation-auditor skill to audit documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only”
  • “/ln-53-documentation-auditor”

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Establish Scope and Audiences
  2. Check Structure and Discoverability
  3. Check Relevance, Coverage, and Consistency
  4. Verify Facts and Examples
  5. Review Comments and Produce the Report

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 0ce8796. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Ln 53 Documentation Auditor loads about 3.8k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 30 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,896 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~30
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.8k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills at commit 0ce8796, republished under its MIT licence (© levnikolaevich). 1,896 words, ~3,757 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
ln-53-documentation-auditor
description
Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.

Documentation Auditor

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 checklist defines completion. Track each item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with evidence, CLEARED with evidence its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, tool failure, a zero exit status, or a self-reported success is not proof; only the observed outcome is. Reconcile after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING, count only PROVEN and CLEARED, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap. Preserve intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. When no one can answer during the run, state the exact question and apply the skill's verdict for the remaining gap instead of waiting or guessing. Scale depth to material risk without skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety order; otherwise choose an appropriate verification method. Accept equivalent user or repository evidence; no other skill, named artifact, or complete lifecycle is required. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant source versions, dirty changes, configuration, and environment; invalidate only affected claims. On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, current state, and unresolved evidence. For long work, return a compact continuation record or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority. Prepare authorized work before required approval. If blocked by an instruction, cite its exact source and unresolved boundary; do not invent approval gates from caution.

Tool Routing

NeedPreferred toolUse it whenFallback
Document inventory and hierarchyNative file listing with narrow patternsEstablishing documentation surfaces, generated areas, and navigation structureRepository tree and known entry documents
Links, repeated terms, claims, and contradictionsNative text search, then focused readsFinding references, stale names, duplicated guidance, paths, commands, and configuration keysManual cross-document comparison
Code and configuration truthNative code search, manifests, schemas, and direct file readsA document claims that a path, option, endpoint, behavior, or default existsExecute a safe inspection command when text is insufficient
Freshness and ownershipGit log, blame, and diffDetermining when a claim changed, whether a document tracks active code, or who owns a conventionCurrent code and explicit ownership files
Commands and examplesShell in non-mutating or dry-run modeVerifying help text, command existence, config parsing, generated output, or example syntaxInspect command registration and tests; mark runtime proof unavailable
External factsOfficial documentation, specifications, and release notesA current external API, version, standard, or platform behavior affects correctnessPrimary-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.

Evidence Rules

Claim typeRequired evidence
Repository path, symbol, command, configuration, endpoint, or defaultCurrent repository or safe command output
External API, version, standard, or compatibility statementOfficial source matching the relevant version
Count or coverage statementReproducible query with scope and exclusions
Historical rationaleCurrent decision record or history that still matches implementation
RecommendationA 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.

Checklist

1. Establish Scope and Audiences
  • Identify documentation entrypoints, public docs, maintainer docs, operational runbooks, generated references, examples, and code-comment surfaces in scope.
  • Identify intended audiences and their concrete tasks: understand, install, configure, operate, troubleshoot, extend, or verify the system.
  • Read applicable repository instructions and detect documentation ownership, generation commands, language policy, and source-of-truth conventions.
  • Separate authored documents from generated, vendored, archived, temporary, and example content before scoring defects.
  • Classify each target as entrypoint/index, reference, how-to, explanation, decision record, generated output, or example; prioritize canonical and claim-dense documents before navigation-only files.
  • Define which code, configuration, schemas, tests, and external contracts can verify documentation claims.
  • Keep the audit read-only and record any unavailable source, command, or environment as a limitation.
2. Check Structure and Discoverability
  • Verify that the root entry document explains purpose, supported use, prerequisites, installation path, and navigation appropriate to its audience.
  • Check hierarchy, headings, table of contents, local navigation, cross-links, anchors, and predictable placement of related material.
  • Verify local paths and anchors, including case sensitivity, and inspect external redirects for a wrong or unavailable destination; a working intentional redirect is not a defect.
  • Identify orphan documents, duplicate entrypoints, circular navigation, deep chains, and important content reachable only by repository search.
  • Check that concepts have one canonical owner and that secondary documents link rather than fork rules, thresholds, or procedures.
  • Verify that generated documentation names its generator and does not invite hand editing that will be overwritten.
  • Check whether large documents can be split or compressed without hiding the sequence or context needed to act safely.
3. Check Relevance, Coverage, and Consistency
  • Compare each document's title, scope statement, and intended audience with its actual content.
  • Judge content by document kind: indexes route without duplicating detail, references optimize exact lookup, how-to guides are safely sequenced, explanations build the right mental model, and decision records preserve context, decision, alternatives, and consequences.
  • Flag filler, repeated summaries, speculative narration, generic generated prose, and ceremonial sections that do not help the intended audience decide or act.
  • Prefer durable intent, contracts, constraints, and operations over copied implementation or business logic; retain only minimal verified code or command examples needed to act safely.
  • Identify off-topic content, scope creep, unexplained prerequisites, hidden assumptions, and sections that no longer support an active task.
  • Check coverage of public behavior, configuration, deployment, migrations, failure recovery, security-sensitive operation, and extension points where applicable.
  • Trace requirements and architecture statements across documents; report contradictions and ambiguous ownership rather than choosing silently.
  • Find obsolete future-tense plans, completed TODOs, removed features, legacy compatibility guidance, old directory layouts, and stale screenshots or examples.
  • Check terminology, entity names, identifiers, capitalization, and lifecycle states for consistency with code and across documents.
  • Verify that warnings, prerequisites, destructive actions, rollback steps, and failure outcomes appear at the point where readers need them.
  • In always-loaded agent instructions, identify redundant formatting prose already enforced by tooling and path-specific detail that can move to supported scoped files. Preserve discovery, non-obvious requirements, and host compatibility.
Show full SKILL.md (831 more words)Show less
4. Verify Facts and Examples
  • Extract material claims about paths, files, symbols, versions, counts, commands, flags, environment variables, configuration keys, ports, endpoints, schemas, and defaults.
  • Build a normalized claim ledger before verification and group repeated claims by subject so one repository check can expose both stale copies and cross-document contradictions.
  • Verify each claim against current repository evidence or a safe command; record the exact source and scope of the check.
  • Resolve installed versions from manifests and lockfiles before consulting external documentation or claiming current support.
  • Use official sources for external APIs, deprecations, security standards, platform limits, and compatibility statements.
  • Execute examples only in a safe local or disposable context; otherwise inspect parsing, tests, and expected output and mark them statically verified.
  • Check examples for missing imports, placeholders presented as real values, invalid paths, unsafe secrets, obsolete syntax, and output that no longer matches behavior.
  • Interpret examples, templates, future plans, and external references in their declared context. Verify conditional guidance for supported prerequisites even when currently disabled; do not judge a hypothetical example as deployed behavior.
  • Verify numeric counts with a reproducible query and documented exclusions; avoid preserving aggregate counts that will drift without automation.
  • Recommend moving change-prone versions, paths, defaults, inventories, generated output, and status snapshots to authoritative code, configuration, or generated sources where practical; otherwise identify the source, scope, and owner or generation/update trigger needed to prevent silent staleness.
  • Apply the research-to-action gate: external guidance becomes a finding only when it proves a concrete in-repository defect or risk.
5. Review Comments and Produce the Report
  • Check comments and docstrings for useful rationale, invariants, contracts, side effects, failure behavior, and non-obvious constraints.
  • For documented deliberate simplifications with material limits, verify supported bounds, an observable revisit trigger, and what to reconsider. Report missing bounds or triggers, exceeded limits, and overdue reviews with evidence and impact; require no special marker and do not label undocumented routine code as debt.
  • Match docstrings for public or non-obvious interfaces against the current signature, parameters, return value, raised errors, side effects, nullability, and lifecycle obligations.
  • Flag syntax narration, obsolete history, dead code, false promises, and information better expressed by names or types; preserve historical rationale that still explains a constraint or prevents a known regression.
  • Check public interfaces for documentation required by the language or ecosystem and for examples that match the actual contract.
  • Filter intentional audience simplification, framework convention, generated prose, and accepted legacy constraints before reporting.
  • Classify every in-scope document or comment surface as KEEP, ADD, UPDATE, DELETE, or MERGE; recommend deletion or consolidation only when canonical coverage preserves every required audience task and contract.
  • Apply the materiality gate: require concrete reader error, blocked task, unsafe action, contradiction, or recurring maintenance cost at evidenced scale. Reject taste, theoretical purity, generic practice, hypothetical scale, and reasonable alternatives; require the outcome or constraint, not a preferred implementation.
  • External correction evidence: Ground external corrections in version-matched official contracts, using primary engineering sources for unresolved tradeoffs. Cite the supported mechanism; local evidence suffices for local defects.
  • For each accepted finding, identify the owning documentation surface, affected reader outcome, and evidence that a correction would restore trust; do not turn recommendations into authorized edits.
  • Classify findings as P0-P3 based on the harm caused by wrong action, inability to operate, maintenance drift, or minor friction.
  • Use BLOCKED when a safety-critical claim, required audience journey, or authoritative source cannot be verified without a credible fallback; use FAIL when evidence proves unsafe guidance, an inoperable required journey, or an unresolved P0/P1; use CONCERNS only for material non-blocking trust gaps, and PASS only when required claims and journeys are verified with no material finding.

Self-Check

  • Reconcile before returning. Check item-level evidence, requirement coverage, contradictions, scope, verdict, and applicable cleanup. Correct the report or authorized artifacts. Reuse valid evidence; do not automatically rescan the repository or rerun successful commands. Repeat checks only for relevant changes, failures, or unresolved evidence. Disclose remaining gaps.

Output Contract

Report in the user's language, in this order; label all five fields and state each fact once. Use controlled plain language: one fact per sentence, usually under 20 words, active voice, and one term per concept, with no synonyms for verdicts, IDs, or states. Small results may use one line per field; omit empty tables and do not copy linked artifacts:

  1. Result: The exact skill-specific verdict token first, then the supported outcome.
  2. Scope: Reviewed/changed scope, exclusions, baseline, and material assumptions.
  3. Evidence: Skill-specific fields below; distinguish facts, inferences, and unverified claims. Link artifacts; use tables when useful.
  4. Verification: Checks/results, unavailable evidence, and applicable cleanup/external state.
  5. Completion: Checklist: X/Y complete; Incomplete: None or each UNPROVEN item's reason, outcome impact, and exact next action; residual risks and required decisions.

Skill-specific evidence: Documentation audiences and journeys; structure, coverage, accuracy, durability/SSOT, and comment trust. Record KEEP / ADD / UPDATE / DELETE / MERGE per in-scope surface. Findings need priority, document location, verifying evidence, affected audience, material impact, unacceptable tradeoff, and minimal correction or canonical owner; allow equivalent structures. Distinguish unverified claims from proven defects.

© levnikolaevich, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor of levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 0ce8796

Compare with similar skills

Ln 53 Documentation Auditor next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Ln 53 Documentation Auditor compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Ln 53 Documentation Auditor this skilllevnikolaevich/claude-code-skills574—~3.8kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Vercel Composition Patternssupabase/supabase111k58 repos~726Automated safety check: PassMIT
Finishing a Development Branchobra/superpowers297k5 repos~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Typescript Advanced Typesrolling-scopes/rsschool-app10k25 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassMPL-2.0
PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter69k3 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Code Review ChecklistshareAI-lab/learn-claude-code78k4 repos~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Official

    React composition patterns that scale. An agent skill from supabase/supabase.

    111k GitHub starsUsed in 58 repos~726 tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Walks the last step of a branch: confirm tests pass, detect the git environment, ask how to integrate, carry out your choice and clean up the worktree.

    297k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.9k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Typescript Advanced Types

    rolling-scopes/rsschool-app

    Master TypeScript's advanced type system including generics, conditional types, mapped types, template literals, and utility types for building type-safe applications.

    10k GitHub starsUsed in 25 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • PR Babysitter

    openinterpreter/openinterpreter

    Watches an open GitHub pull request until it merges, handling review comments, diagnosing CI failures and retrying flaky checks along the way.

    69k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Code Review Checklist

    shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code

    Reviews code against a five-part checklist covering security, correctness, performance, maintainability and testing, and reports findings in a fixed format.

    78k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~1.1k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Greploop

    onyx-dot-app/onyx

    Iteratively improves a PR (GitHub), MR (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) until Greptile gives it a 5/5 confidence score with zero unresolved comments.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~3.3k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

All 31 skills in this repo
  • Ln 81 Skill Reviewer

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

    574 GitHub stars~3.5k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 11 Opportunity Evaluator

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Evaluates new product opportunities through demand, channels and economics before committing to build.

    574 GitHub stars~3k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 12 Product Requirements Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Defines product requirements, business rules and acceptance criteria for a committed intent; edits product docs only.

    574 GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 13 Interaction Design Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Designs user flows, interaction states and mockups for a defined product scope; does not implement UI code.

    574 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 21 System Design Baseline Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Defines measurable architecture drivers and constraints before system design; edits architecture docs only.

    574 GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 22 Current Architecture Documenter

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Documents current architecture from implementation evidence; does not propose a target or audit fitness.

    574 GitHub stars~2.3k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Ln 53 Documentation Auditor

What does Ln 53 Documentation Auditor do?

Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only. Ln 53 Documentation Auditor is an agent skill from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.

When should I use Ln 53 Documentation Auditor?

Ln 53 Documentation Auditor fits situations like: development work in your project.

How do I install Ln 53 Documentation Auditor in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-53-documentation-auditor -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills) into .claude/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Ln 53 Documentation Auditor in Codex?

Run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-53-documentation-auditor -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills) into .agents/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Ln 53 Documentation Auditor in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-53-documentation-auditor -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor, .gemini/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor, .github/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor and .opencode/skills/ln-53-documentation-auditor in your project.

What does Ln 53 Documentation Auditor need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Ln 53 Documentation Auditor is instructions for the agent only.

Does Ln 53 Documentation Auditor access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Ln 53 Documentation Auditor safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Ln 53 Documentation Auditor use?

Ln 53 Documentation Auditor is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Ln 53 Documentation Auditor use?

About 3.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 15k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Ln 53 Documentation Auditor?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Ln 53 Documentation Auditor: Vercel Composition Patterns (supabase/supabase, 111k stars), Finishing a Development Branch (obra/superpowers, 297k stars), Typescript Advanced Types (rolling-scopes/rsschool-app, 10k stars) and PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Ln 53 Documentation Auditor?

levnikolaevich (a GitHub user) maintains it in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills, which has 574 GitHub stars. The repository holds 31 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 5, 2026.

Source: levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.