diataxis-audit

name	diataxis-audit
description	Audit existing documentation against the Diátaxis framework's four quadrants. Use when reviewing documentation that feels unclear, when assessing documentation quality, or when preparing for a documentation reorganization.
metadata	{"author":"Georges Martin <[e-mail]>","version":"0.1.4"}
license	MIT

Diátaxis Documentation Audit

Audit existing documentation against the Diátaxis framework to identify mixed quadrants, gaps, and quality issues.

Diátaxis Compass

           Practical           Theoretical
        +----------------+------------------+
Study   |   TUTORIALS    |   EXPLANATION    |
        |   (learning)   | (understanding)  |
        +----------------+------------------+
Work    |   HOW-TO       |   REFERENCE      |
        |   (problem)    |  (information)   |
        +----------------+------------------+

Key principle: These quadrants must remain distinct. Blurring boundaries is the most common documentation problem.

When to Use

• Reviewing documentation that feels unclear or difficult to use
• Assessing documentation quality before a release or handoff
• Preparing for a documentation reorganization
• Onboarding to an unfamiliar project and evaluating its docs

Required Inputs

1. Documentation path(s): Files or directories to audit
2. Scope (optional): Full audit or quick spot-check

Workflow

Phase 1: Inventory

Read all documentation files in the target path. For each file, record:

• File path
• Apparent intent (what quadrant it seems to target)
• Length and structure

Phase 2: Classify

For each document or section, classify using these questions:

Question	If Yes →
Is it a guided learning experience building to a result?	Tutorial
Does it solve a specific, practical problem?	How-to guide
Does it describe the system factually and completely?	Reference
Does it explain why things work the way they do?	Explanation

If a section answers multiple questions, it is mixed — flag it.

Phase 3: Detect Red Flags

Check each document against its quadrant's anti-patterns:

Tutorials that:

• Explain concepts before showing action
• Offer choices or alternatives
• Assume prior knowledge of the system
• Don't build to a concrete, testable result

How-to guides that:

• Teach from scratch instead of assuming competence
• Explain theory instead of giving directions
• Don't state the goal upfront
• Have only one rigid path (no flexibility)

Reference that:

• Includes step-by-step instructions
• Uses conversational or narrative tone
• Is incomplete or inconsistent in coverage
• Mixes in opinions or recommendations

Explanation that:

• Is just a list of bare facts
• Includes procedural steps
• Doesn't connect to the "why"
• Lacks context or historical perspective

Phase 4: Gap Analysis

Check which quadrants are missing entirely:

• No tutorials? New users have no guided onboarding.
• No how-to guides? Experienced users can't solve specific problems.
• No reference? Developers can't look up details.
• No explanation? Nobody understands the design rationale.

Phase 5: Quality Assessment

For documents that are correctly classified, assess quality:

Tutorial quality:

• Could a complete beginner succeed on first try?
• Does it build to a concrete result?
• Are steps small and testable?
• Does it inspire confidence and motivation?

How-to quality:

• Does it solve a real problem users actually have?
• Can users adapt the steps to their situation?
• Does it assume appropriate competence?
• Is the goal stated clearly upfront?

Reference quality:

• Can users find information quickly?
• Is coverage consistent and comprehensive?
• Is it authoritative and trustworthy?
• Is it structured for scanning, not reading?

Explanation quality:

• Does it produce understanding ("aha!" moments)?
• Does it connect concepts to motivations?
• Does it discuss trade-offs honestly?
• Does it help users make better decisions?

Outputs

Generate an audit report containing:

• Summary table: Each document with its classification, quality rating, and issues
• Mixed content: Specific sections that blend quadrants, with extraction recommendations
• Gap analysis: Missing quadrants and their impact
• Priority recommendations: Ordered list of improvements, highest impact first
• Cross-linking opportunities: Where documents should reference each other

Report Format

# Diátaxis Audit Report

## Summary

| Document | Intended Quadrant | Actual Quadrant(s) | Quality | Issues |
|----------|-------------------|---------------------|---------|--------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Mixed Content (requires splitting)

### [filename]
- Lines N-M: Tutorial content mixed into reference → extract to tutorials/
- Lines X-Y: Explanation mixed into how-to → extract to explanation/

## Missing Quadrants

- [ ] Tutorial: [impact of absence]
- [ ] How-to: [impact of absence]
- [ ] Reference: [impact of absence]
- [ ] Explanation: [impact of absence]

## Recommendations (priority order)

1. [Highest impact action]
2. ...

Validation

• Every document is classified into exactly one quadrant (or flagged as mixed)
• Red flags are specific: cite the document, section, and line range
• Recommendations are actionable and prioritized

Related Skills

• diataxis-convert: Split mixed documents identified by this audit
• diataxis-create: Fill gaps identified by this audit
• diataxis-plan: Design the target documentation architecture