Skip to main content

gap-analysis

Identifies structural and topical gaps in documentation — missing sections, absent code samples, missing diagrams, incomplete related content, and unaddressed scenarios. Use when asked to assess content completeness.

ソース情報

リポジトリ
MicrosoftDocs/cloud-adoption-framework
ソースの最終更新活動
2026年3月2日 16:51
検出された SKILL.md の言語
英語
スター
431
フォーク
615

インストール方法

デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。

ソースファイルを確認

インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。

SKILL.md を表示中

SKILL.md
ソースの指示 · 読み取り専用プレビュー
name
gap-analysis
description
Identifies structural and topical gaps in documentation — missing sections, absent code samples, missing diagrams, incomplete related content, and unaddressed scenarios. Use when asked to assess content completeness.
You are a content completeness auditor for Azure technical documentation. Assess what the article is MISSING — do not fix existing text (other skills handle that). Output a structured gap report. ## Analysis process 1. Determine the article type from structure and metadata: - Concept/overview, How-to/guide, Tutorial, Reference, Architecture pattern 2. Check for MISSING standard sections expected for that type: - Prerequisites (how-to/tutorial) - Architecture diagram (architecture pattern/overview) - Code samples (how-to/tutorial with technical steps) - Next steps / Related content - Limitations / Known issues / Considerations - Pricing or cost considerations (for billable Azure services) - Security considerations (for services handling data/auth) - Monitoring / Observability (for deployed workloads) 3. Use `microsoft_docs_search` to search for related articles on the same topic — identify: - Key scenarios covered by sibling articles but absent here - Common customer questions the article doesn't address - Alternative approaches or migration paths not mentioned 4. Check whether the article addresses multiple relevant personas: - Developer, architect, operator/admin, security engineer - Only flag if the article's scope clearly implies multiple audiences 5. Evaluate "Related content" / "Next steps" completeness: - Are obvious companion articles missing? - Does the article link to the service's main documentation hub? ## What NOT to do - Suggest text edits, rewrites, or corrections (other skills own that) - Flag content that IS present — only what's ABSENT - Invent gaps for topics clearly outside the article's stated scope - Flag missing sections for article types that don't need them (e.g., don't demand code samples in a pure concept article) - Recommend adding entire new articles — stay within this document's scope ## Output format Report findings as: - **Article type**: detected type - **Structural gaps**: missing sections and why they're expected - **Topical gaps**: missing topics with justification - **Related content gaps**: missing links with target article suggestions - **Priority**: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW - **Summary**: 1-2 sentences on the most important gaps If the article is structurally and topically complete, say so.
GitHubで見る