doc-completeness-audit

name	doc-completeness-audit
description	Audit documentation completeness by mapping what a doc set should cover against what it actually covers. Produces a prioritized gap report by topic, not just by file. This skill should be used after shipping features, before releases, or when users report missing documentation.
version	1.0.0
tags	["documentation","audit","completeness","review"]
triggers	["audit doc completeness","what docs are missing","doc coverage gaps","documentation gaps","are docs complete"]
dependencies	{"skills":["doc-maintenance","doc-claim-validator"],"tools":["Grep","Glob","Read","Bash","Agent"]}
token_estimate	~3500
keywords	["doc gaps","audit coverage","completeness","doc","audit","doc completeness audit"]

Documentation Completeness Audit

Determine whether a documentation set covers everything it should by building an inventory of what needs documenting and comparing it to what exists. The output is a prioritized gap report — not new documentation.

When to Use

• After shipping a feature — verify docs cover the new surface area
• Before a release — ensure no undocumented public APIs, CLI flags, or config options
• When users or new hires report "I couldn't find docs for X"
• Periodic health check on doc coverage
• After running doc-maintenance (structural) and doc-claim-validator (accuracy) to go wider

Quick Reference

Resource	Purpose	Load when
references/coverage-model.md	Defines what "complete" means per doc type	Always (Phase 1)

---

Workflow Overview

Phase 1: Inventory   → Build the "should exist" list from code and config
Phase 2: Map         → Match inventory items to existing documentation
Phase 3: Classify    → Score each gap by audience impact
Phase 4: Report      → Produce the prioritized gap report

---

Phase 1: Build the Inventory

Construct a list of everything that should be documented. Use four sources, checking all of them:

Source 1: Public Code Surface

Run the bundled inventory script to extract documentable surface area deterministically:

python3 skills/doc-completeness-audit/scripts/inventory.py --root . --json > inventory.json

# Or human-readable:
python3 skills/doc-completeness-audit/scripts/inventory.py --root .

# Run specific detectors only:
python3 skills/doc-completeness-audit/scripts/inventory.py --root . --detectors env_vars,cli_commands

The script scans source files across Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust, Go, Ruby, Java, and shell, extracting six categories:

Detector	What it extracts
env_vars	Environment variable references (os.environ, process.env, env::var, etc.)
cli_commands	CLI commands and flags (argparse, click, clap, cobra, commander)
config_keys	Configuration key access in config-related files
http_endpoints	HTTP route definitions (Flask, FastAPI, Express, Actix, Axum, net/http)
public_exports	Public module exports (__init__.py, export, pub fn, Go capitalized funcs)
error_types	Custom error/exception class definitions
Event types, webhooks, callbacks	Every event name and payload shape

Dispatch an Explore agent to scan for these signals. Provide it with the project's primary language and entry points.

Source 2: User-Facing Features

Identify features a user interacts with:

• TUI screens, views, keybindings
• CLI workflows (multi-step operations)
• Integration points (hooks, plugins, extensions)
• Authentication/authorization flows
• Error messages that imply user action

Source 3: Operational Surface

Identify what operators and maintainers need:

• Installation and setup procedures
• Upgrade and migration paths
• Backup and restore procedures
• Troubleshooting common errors
• Environment requirements and dependencies
• CI/CD integration points

Source 4: Existing Docs Cross-References

Check existing docs for promises of documentation that doesn't exist:

• "See [link]" references to pages that don't exist
• "Coming soon" or "TODO" markers
• Table of contents entries without corresponding pages
• Navigation entries without targets

Source 5: Architectural / Operational / Migration Topic Discovery (sonnet)

The first four sources catch code-detectable surface (env vars, CLI flags, endpoints, exported APIs, broken cross-references). They miss topics that exist as architectural patterns, user flows, ops procedures, or migration paths but don't surface as a single greppable symbol. Examples:

• Architectural patterns the system implements (CQRS, event sourcing, saga) — should be documented but won't show up in inventory.py
• User flows implicit across UI surfaces — "how to share a project" may span multiple components and isn't a single CLI command
• Migration paths between versions — typically tribal knowledge until someone needs them
• Operational runbooks (incidents, rollbacks, capacity events)
• Recovery procedures and disaster scenarios

Dispatch one general-purpose + sonnet agent for topic discovery:

subagent_type: "general-purpose"
model: "sonnet"
description: "Architectural/operational topic discovery"

Prompt: read README, top-level docs, and a sample of code (architecture files, integration boundaries, deployment configs, major feature directories). Identify topics that should be documented but aren't captured by the code-surface inventory. For each topic, name:

• topic — what needs documenting (one phrase)
• evidence — what in the codebase implies this topic exists (path:line citations)
• audience — who would read this (operators, contributors, advanced users)
• type — reference, tutorial, guide, explanation, runbook
• confidence — high (clear evidence), medium (inferred), low (speculative)

Append the agent's output to the inventory list before Phase 2.

Output: A structured inventory list. Each item has:

• topic — what needs documenting
• source — where the requirement was discovered (code path, config key, user flow, sonnet inference)
• audience — who needs this (end user, developer, operator)
• type — what kind of doc it needs (reference, tutorial, guide, explanation, runbook)
• confidence — high (deterministic) | medium | low (sonnet-inferred speculative)

---

Phase 2: Map to Existing Documentation (per-docfile sonnet dispatch)

For each inventory item, determine whether it's documented and how well. "Adequate coverage" requires reading surrounding context — a grep hit doesn't tell you whether the topic is truly explained vs. just mentioned in passing. Orchestrator-side execution would require reading every doc N times (once per inventory item), which strains the context window.

Dispatch strategy

Two-phase mapping:

1. Bulk grep pass (orchestrator) — for each inventory item, grep docs for the topic name. Build a candidate match map: which docs mention each topic.
2. Per-docfile sonnet pass — for each docfile that surfaced as a candidate match for any inventory item, dispatch one general-purpose + sonnet agent. The agent receives the doc + the list of inventory items that grep'd to this doc, and judges each as Documented / Shallow / Misplaced.

This keeps total agent calls ≈ N candidate docfiles (not N inventory items × M docs). For a typical project with 100 inventory items and 50 docs, the candidate map usually has 30–50 docs needing review.

Per-docfile prompt template

subagent_type: "general-purpose"
model: "sonnet"
description: "Coverage mapping for <docfile>"

Prompt:

Read the doc at <DOCFILE_PATH>. The following inventory items grep-matched
this doc — judge each:

<INVENTORY_ITEMS_FOR_THIS_DOC>

For each item, classify as one of:
- Documented: dedicated section or page provides adequate coverage
- Shallow: mentioned but insufficient (missing examples, edge cases,
  parameter listings; flag-in-table without explanation)
- Misplaced: covered, but in the wrong doc type for the audience (API
  reference embedded in a tutorial; user-facing topic in dev-only docs)
- No real match: grep matched but the doc doesn't actually cover the topic
  (incidental mention, different concept with the same word)

Output as YAML:

doc_path: <path>
items_reviewed: N
classifications:
  - item: <topic>
    classification: Documented | Shallow | Misplaced | No real match
    section: <heading or line range where the topic is covered>
    evidence: <quote or paraphrase of the relevant content>
    gap: <if Shallow, what's missing; if Misplaced, where it should live>

Items with no candidate match

Inventory items that grep'd 0 docs go directly to the "Missing" bucket without a sonnet review. The orchestrator handles these in Phase 3.

Why per-docfile rather than per-item

Per-item dispatch (one sonnet call per inventory item, reading every candidate doc fresh) blows up at any meaningful scale (100 items × 5 candidates = 500 calls). Per-docfile lets the agent see all related items in one pass and cross-reference within the doc — also higher precision than fragmented per-item judgments.

---

Phase 3: Classify Gaps by Impact

Not all gaps are equal. Score each gap using audience impact:

Priority Framework

Priority	Criteria	Example
P0	User cannot accomplish a core task without this	No installation guide, undocumented required config
P1	User can work around it but wastes significant time	CLI flag exists but undocumented, error message without troubleshooting
P2	Missing docs for secondary features or advanced use cases	Plugin API undocumented, advanced config options missing
P3	Missing docs for edge cases or rarely used features	Obscure env var, deprecated feature migration path
P4	Nice to have — explanatory content, design rationale	Architecture decision records, "why" behind defaults

Audience Weighting

Apply a multiplier based on audience:

Audience	Weight	Rationale
New users / onboarding	1.5x	First impressions; high abandonment risk
Daily users	1.0x	Core audience
Advanced users / contributors	0.8x	Can read source when docs fail
Internal operators	0.7x	Can ask the team

A P2 gap for new users (P2 × 1.5 = 3.0) outranks a P1 gap for internal operators (P1 × 0.7 = 2.1).

---

Phase 4: Produce the Gap Report

Report Format

# Documentation Completeness Audit

**Audit date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Scope:** [directories or doc sets audited]
**Inventory items:** N total
**Coverage:** N documented / N shallow / N missing / N misplaced

---

## Summary

[2-3 sentences: overall completeness assessment]

Coverage by audience:
| Audience | Documented | Shallow | Missing | Coverage % |
|----------|-----------|---------|---------|------------|
| New users | N | N | N | N% |
| Daily users | N | N | N | N% |
| Contributors | N | N | N | N% |
| Operators | N | N | N | N% |

---

## P0 Gaps — Blocking

| # | Topic | Audience | Source | Current State | What's Needed |
|---|-------|----------|--------|---------------|---------------|
| 1 | [topic] | [who] | [code path] | Missing | [what to write] |

## P1 Gaps — High Impact

| # | Topic | Audience | Source | Current State | What's Needed |
|---|-------|----------|--------|---------------|---------------|

## P2 Gaps — Moderate Impact

| # | Topic | Audience | Source | Current State | What's Needed |
|---|-------|----------|--------|---------------|---------------|

## P3-P4 Gaps — Low Priority

| # | Topic | Audience | Priority | Current State |
|---|-------|----------|----------|---------------|

---

## Shallow Coverage Details

For each Shallow item, explain what's insufficient:

### [Topic]
**Current doc:** [path and section]
**Problem:** [what's missing — examples, edge cases, complete reference, etc.]
**Recommended action:** [specific improvement]

---

## Misplaced Documentation

| Topic | Current Location | Recommended Location | Why |
|-------|-----------------|---------------------|-----|

---

## Well-Documented (No Action Needed)

[List topics with adequate coverage, grouped by audience, so the report
shows the full picture and not just the gaps]

---

Integration with Other Doc Skills

This skill fits into the documentation health pipeline:

doc-maintenance         →  Structural health (links, orphans, folders)
doc-claim-validator     →  Semantic accuracy (do claims match code?)
doc-completeness-audit  →  Topic coverage (is everything documented?)
doc-quality-review      →  Prose quality (is it well-written?)
doc-architecture-review →  Information architecture (is it findable?)

Route gap remediation to the appropriate producer:

• Reference gaps → reference-documentation
• Tutorial gaps → tutorial-design
• Explanation gaps → documentation-production

---

Anti-Patterns

• Do not count files as coverage — a file can exist and say nothing useful
• Do not manufacture gaps to look thorough — if coverage is good, say so
• Do not audit archived docs (docs/archive/) — they are historical
• Do not require documentation for internal implementation details — only public surface
• Do not treat every function as needing its own doc page — aggregate by topic
• Do not conflate "not documented" with "needs documenting" — some things are correctly undocumented (internal helpers, deprecated code scheduled for removal)

---

Bundled Resources

Scripts

• scripts/inventory.py — Extract documentable surface area from any codebase (env vars, CLI commands, config keys, HTTP endpoints, public exports, error types)

References

• references/coverage-model.md — Defines coverage expectations per doc type and audience