| name | documentation-diataxis |
| description | Analyzes documentation against Diataxis framework (Tutorial, How-to, Reference, Explanation). Use when reviewing documentation structure or classifying content type. Identifies misalignments between declared category and actual content. |
Diataxis Classification Review
Scope
Diataxis classification only: identify whether each page is a tutorial,
how-to guide, explanation, or reference; note structural mismatches
between content type and declared category, and suggest improvements
where real issues exist.
Ground classification in the Diataxis foundations: the two axes of craft
(action vs cognition, acquisition vs application) define four user needs
(learning, goals, information, understanding).
This skill identifies flaws and provides actionable recommendations;
it does not enforce compliance or apply pass/fail criteria.
Inputs
- Documentation file(s) under review.
- Diataxis framework principles (embedded in classification criteria below).
Actions
-
Identify intended category: Determine the declared category
based on directory location
(tutorial/, how-to/, explanation/, reference/)
and file metadata (front matter keys such as category, type,
diataxis, or reST .. meta:: entries).
-
Infer actual category: Analyse the text's structure, tone,
and progression to determine which quadrant it actually resembles.
Use these classification criteria:
-
Tutorial indicators:
- Step-by-step progression building a complete project
- Imperative mood ("Create a file", "Run this command")
- Learning-focused language ("you will learn", "by the end")
- Safe, controlled environment (specific versions, no branching)
- Frequent reassurance and checkpoints
- Teaches by doing, not explaining
-
How-to guide indicators:
- Problem-solution format with clear goal
- Assumes existing knowledge and competence
- Clearly states prerequisites and applicability scope
- Action-oriented ("To achieve X, do Y")
- Flexible, allows for variation
- Focuses on results, not learning
- Omits explanations unless critical to success
-
Reference indicators:
- Descriptive, declarative statements
- Comprehensive coverage of subject
- Neutral, technical tone
- Structured for lookup (tables, lists, alphabetical)
- Parameters, options, API signatures
- Accuracy over narrative
-
Explanation indicators:
- Conceptual focus ("why" and "how it works")
- Discursive, exploratory tone
- Comparative analysis
- Context, background, relationships
- Illuminates understanding, not action
- May include history, design decisions, alternatives
- May contain subjective opinions and personal perspectives
-
Check user need alignment:
Map the page to the user need implied by the action/cognition and
acquisition/application axes (learning, goals, information,
understanding).
- Tutorials: Is it a learning-oriented lesson?
Does it build confidence through doing? Is it linear and safe?
- How-to guides: Is it a task-oriented recipe?
Does it help a competent user solve a specific problem?
Is it goal-focused?
- Reference: Is it information-oriented?
Does it describe things accurately and completely?
Is it structured for lookup?
- Explanation: Is it understanding-oriented?
Does it clarify concepts, context, and relationships?
Is it discursive?
-
Note hard-to-fit genres: Some documentation types do not align
cleanly with a single quadrant (for example, release notes or
contributing guides). Flag these cases explicitly, reference the
Diataxis guidance on complex hierarchies
(https://diataxis.fr/complex-hierarchies/), and choose the closest
fit category for reporting.
-
Evaluate quality:
-
Functional quality: Is the content accurate, complete,
consistent, useful, and precise?
- Missing prerequisites or dependencies
- Incomplete steps or procedures
- Inconsistent terminology or naming
- Outdated information (version mismatches, deprecated features)
-
Deep quality: Does the content have good flow?
Does it anticipate user questions?
Is the cognitive load appropriate? Is the experience clear?
- Paragraph length (>4 sentences may suggest need for breaking)
- Sentence complexity (nested clauses, dense jargon)
- Transition quality (abrupt topic changes, missing connectives)
- Progressive disclosure (introducing too much too soon)
- User journey mapping (gaps in expected flow)
-
Document misalignments: Explicitly identify where the document
fails to meet the needs of its category, jumps between categories,
or where quality breaks down. For each issue, provide:
- Specific location (section, paragraph)
- Nature of the problem
- Impact on user experience
- Concrete suggestion for improvement
-
Verify completion: Confirm the analysis completed:
- Category classification completed (declared vs inferred)
- User need alignment analyzed
- Quality assessment performed (functional and deep quality)
- Misalignments documented with recommendations
State the completion status:
✓ Diataxis analysis complete: [declared category] → [inferred category], [N] issues found
- OR
✓ Diataxis analysis complete: Content aligns well with [category]
Constraints
- Do not ignore the Diataxis framework.
- Assign each page to exactly one quadrant.
- Do not introduce categories beyond the four quadrants.
Output
A Diataxis Analysis Report detailing:
- Declared category (from metadata/directory structure).
- Inferred category (from content analysis).
- User need alignment analysis (which quadrant best serves the user).
- Functional quality findings (with specific examples).
- Deep quality findings (with specific examples).
- Identified issues and actionable recommendations for improvement.
If no significant issues are found, state that the documentation
aligns well with its intended category.