auditing-repo-documentation

---

name: auditing-repo-documentation version: 1.0.0 user-invocable: true description: Scan a repository and score its documentation health against community-health and onboarding best practices. Use when assessing documentation quality, checking repo health, or identifying missing docs. Triggered by: audit docs, documentation health, repo score, docs review, community health check. argument-hint: "[path/to/repo]" allowed-tools:

• Bash
• Read
• Grep
• Glob

---

Audit Repository Documentation

Scan a repository and produce a weighted documentation-health score with actionable gap analysis.

Input

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS

• If a path is provided, audit that directory as the repository root.
• If empty, use the current working directory.

Phase 1 — Discover Repository Context

Gather context that informs scoring and recommendations:

1. Detect the primary language and framework from manifest files (package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod, etc.).
2. List existing documentation files at the repo root and under .github/.
3. Note any docs/ directory or existing documentation infrastructure.

If the directory is not a git repository, skip git-specific checks and focus on file-presence auditing.

Phase 2 — Score Each Documentation File

Use the scoring rubric in references/scoring-rubric.md (bundled alongside this skill). For each file listed in the rubric:

1. Check existence — Does the file exist at the expected path (including common variants)?
2. Check content quality — If it exists, read it and assess against the rubric's quality criteria.
3. Assign a score — 0 (missing), 1 (poor/stub), 2 (adequate), 3 (good).
4. Apply the weight — Multiply the score by the rubric weight for that file.

Phase 3 — Calculate Overall Score

overall_score = sum(weighted_scores) / sum(max_possible_weighted_scores) * 100

Round to the nearest integer. Map to a grade:

Score	Grade	Label
90–100	A	Excellent
75–89	B	Good
50–74	C	Needs Improvement
25–49	D	Poor
0–24	F	Critical

Phase 4 — Prioritize Gaps

Sort missing or inadequate files by:

1. Severity — High (weight ≥ 5), Medium (weight 3), Low (weight ≤ 2)
2. Impact — Files that block contributors rank above internal-only docs

For each gap, provide:

• File name and expected path
• Why it matters (one sentence)
• Suggested next step (e.g. "Use the scaffolding-repo-documentation skill to create this file")

Phase 5 — Output

Present the assessment:

## Documentation Health Report

**Repository:** <repo name or path>
**Overall Score:** <score>/100 (<grade>)
**Primary Language:** <detected language>

### Per-File Scores

| File | Status | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|------|--------|-------|--------|----------|
| README.md | ✅ Good | 3/3 | ×5 | 15/15 |
| CONTRIBUTING.md | ❌ Missing | 0/3 | ×3 | 0/9 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### High Priority Gaps
1. **CONTRIBUTING.md** (weight: 3) — No contributor guide.
   → Use the `scaffolding-repo-documentation` skill to create this file.

### Summary
<2–3 sentence summary of the repo's documentation posture and the most impactful next steps.>

Edge Cases

• Empty README — A README with only a heading or fewer than 50 characters scores 1, not 2.
• Non-GitHub hosting — If .github/ does not exist, skip GitHub-specific files but note them.
• Monorepo — Score only the root-level docs. Note that sub-packages may need their own READMEs.